# Is CC becoming a victim of its own success ? ?



## peanut (3 Nov 2009)

I'd be interested to see if there are any other CC's that are getting thorughly fed up with the non riding section of CC that seem bent on disrupting every thread with their stupid flaming.?

What happened to serious discussion about cycling related topics ? 

I just selected 'new posts ' and I am struggling to see 5x serious bike topics in the first 20 threads.

I for one feel that it is about time that some clearer guidelines were introduced about posting policy . What is acceptable behaviour and what isn't .

When Mods start flaming and making personal attacks on other members and use abusive and insulting language I think its time that some sensible moderation was intoduced. 

personally I blame the rise of the L&P forum . I believe that a lot of the topics and language used is not appropriate to a cycling forum but that is just my opinion. The negative aspects of the L&P forum are starting to spill over onto other sections as they look for 'easy 'prey' to flame.

I think CC is heading for a C+ or ACF type meltdown shortly if things continue as they are


----------



## rh100 (3 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I'd be interested to see if there are any other CC's that are getting thorughly fed up with the *non riding section of CC that seem bent on disrupting every thread with their stupid flaming.?*
> 
> *What happened to serious discussion about cycling related topics ?*
> 
> ...



Why would a non riding section have to have serious posts about cycling? I understood the Cafe etc was for chit chat. You posted two yourself today that I have seen. I don't understand the problem with that.


----------



## Bollo (3 Nov 2009)

Peanut has been bonjed!

As for L&P, I've never even clicked the link, honest injun. I think a lot of the posting migrates to Cafe in the evening as people just want to shoot the breeze, with or without the aid of dizzy water. That's fine, and I do it myself sometimes. There's still plenty of gold in CC, by and large people observe the tone of each section and there's not the sense that you're treading on eggshells all the time (CTC Forum - I'm looking at you!)


----------



## gbb (3 Nov 2009)

I detected this a few weeks ago, a real niggly phase, the same we had on C+.
It fairly irked me at the time and i stopped coming in for a short time.
To be fair i thought it had passed ?


----------



## peanut (3 Nov 2009)

rh100 said:


> Why would a non riding section have to have serious posts about cycling? I understood the Cafe etc was for chit chat. You posted two yourself today that I have seen. I don't understand the problem with that.



no I'm not referring to the Cafe obviously. I think that section is essential for any healthy internet community.
I was referring to other sections where members wish to discuss various biking issues seriously and threads get flamed and degenerate into a silly arguments,personal insults or go off topic etc. 
Many many threads end up this way often started by new members who are never seen again


----------



## Will1985 (3 Nov 2009)

I haven't noticed a major problem - I disabled seeing P&L in the new posts a long time ago.


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Nov 2009)

So why not start some threads about bikes then.
Starting moaning threads does little for the development of cc, but it does create a bad vibe.


----------



## peanut (3 Nov 2009)

gbb said:


> I detected this a few weeks ago, a real niggly phase, the same we had on C+.
> It fairly irked me at the time and i stopped coming in for a short time.
> To be fair i thought it had passed ?



I'm not so sure myself.

*I have definitely noticed a reluctance in myself to log in at CC in the past 2x months or so* which is a shame

I have been actively seeking new communities to frequent where there are fewer posters but a more grown up attitude. maybe we are attracting too many kids and minority group members ?


----------



## Fab Foodie (3 Nov 2009)

Can't say I've witnessed much flaming in cycling threads and most of P&L is gentle maulings by willing participants who'd kiss and make-up over a beer or a bike ride.


----------



## peanut (3 Nov 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> So why not start some threads about bikes then.
> Starting moaning threads does little for the development of cc, but it does create a bad vibe.



its not intended as a moaning thread. Why is it that you see it as such ?
How do you think that your comment has added anything constructive Steve ? Do you not see that your response is actually part of the problem. 

No-one needs to start new threads . What I am drawing attention to is the overwhelming tendancy for serious thread issues to be flamed by idiots who have nothing beter to do than post some silly non construvctive ,confrontational comment and push off to the next thread.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (3 Nov 2009)

It's all good here...there are serious & extremely helpful forums and then theres the cafe etc...each to his/her own.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Nov 2009)

Can't say I've noticed a serious problem. I rarely go to P&L, and to be honest I spend a lot of my time posting non-cycling stuff. I quite like just shooting the breeze with amiable folk about old music and silly jokes and puns. I don't in truth have all that much cycling bidniss to transact. Mostly I just ride. 

If I do want answers though, I do pose the questions...and mostly get helpful responses. And I drop into beginners and know how sometimes and help out if I can. But no, I don't see any great problem. 

Some people come by spoiling for a fight, or just being stubborn & silly...but in my experience they're easy enough to avoid. I tend to just state my position (if I feel inclined) then walk away. It's never worth getting into an argument - it achieves nothing. And it's not what I come here for.


----------



## peanut (3 Nov 2009)

well maybe i am expecting too much from CC or maybe Its just me , I have failed to notice CC has developed and evolved into a more social type of community. 

Perhaps you lot are right  maybe I should just accept that CC is now what is is and shove off to TT or Tri or RoadBikes or whatever when i wish to talk serious bike stuff and just drop in here when I want an amiable chat or shoot the breeze as you put it and just put up with the trolls and flaming


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Nov 2009)

its the nature of forums. serious debate descends into farce as someone spells something wrong, or uses an apostrophe in the wrong place.
and i think you'll find this forum remarkably troll free Peanut, something the mods do a remarkable job on. 
maybe you are just tired of CC. i know i get that like that. some parts more than others


----------



## Manonabike (3 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> its not intended as a moaning thread. Why is it that you see it as such ?
> How do you think that your comment has added anything constructive Steve ? Do you not see that your response is actually part of the problem.
> 
> No-one needs to start new threads . What I am drawing attention to is *the overwhelming tendancy for serious thread issues to be flamed by idiots who have nothing beter to do than post some silly non construvctive ,confrontational comment and push off to the next thread.*



This is so true but it's nothing new here.... maybe not as bad as it's now.


----------



## Shaun (3 Nov 2009)

I assume this thread has something to do with this?

Don't try to take it too personally if some people don't share your enthusiasm or interest in a particular idea. If it's a good one, it'll float on its own merit.

Equally, if people are not being constructive, just ignore their comments and focus on the reasoned, thoughtful ones.

Maybe, even, take a break from CC for a week or two?

I know I sometimes get a little too wrapped up in it; the modding and problem sorting can sometimes draw you in both on and off the forums (_thinking it all through_), and you can occasionally forget about all the _good stuff_ that goes on here.

A few days away (_usually enforced by family duties_) often brings me back refreshed.

Of course, you could always give some other forums a try and see how they compare. They all have their own vibe and there may be one that fits you better than CC does at the moment.

Just my 2p worth ... 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Admin said:


> I assume this thread has something to do with this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no
that thread has nothing to do with it at all actually. 

I've already made it perfectly clear that it was tounge-in-cheek and that an existing sub forum would be adequate until interest levels suggested otherwise haven't I !

I thought that my post was clear but perhaps not as clear as I thought 
I was referring to the past 6 months or so . It seems like membership has quadrupaled in that period, which is fantastic but there is certainly a lot more flaming imo.

I'm not alone in noticing this and there was another thread about this which co-incided with a member (or two?) being suspended I believe


----------



## Archie_tect (4 Nov 2009)

Threads are like television channels... you don't have to look at them if you know you'll not enjoy what they contain...unless you have a certain masochistic streak and like to suffer!


----------



## Shaun (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> well that was a subtle hint Shaun thanks
> 
> if you don't like it shove off



No, not at all.


I linked to the thread that I thought would give everyone a perspective on where your comments were coming from, and then offered the following _constructive_ advice:

Ignore the negative comments / people and focus on the positives
Take a break so as to come back refreshed / with a different perspective
Try other forums to see how they compare
How was that telling you to _shove off _exactly_? _

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Shaun (4 Nov 2009)

It may also interest you to know that you can selectively _remove_ forums from the New Posts results to filter out some of the _noise_:

My Account > Settings & Options > Edit Options > Exclude Forums from "Get New Posts" and "Get Daily" (at the bottom)

(Note: Hold the CTRL key whilst clicking to select multiple forums.)

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## MacB (4 Nov 2009)

Admin said:


> It may also interest you to know that you can selectively _remove_ forums from the New Posts results to filter out some of the _noise_:
> 
> My Account > Settings & Options > Edit Options > Exclude Forums from "Get New Posts" and "Get Daily" (at the bottom)
> 
> ...



is very handy to know, I may send P&L to there for a while, it wastes too much of my time


----------



## summerdays (4 Nov 2009)

Will1985 said:


> I haven't noticed a major problem - I disabled seeing P&L in the new posts a long time ago.



Me too - I don't have thick enough skin to play in that playground. I do peek occasionally but at least I know I'm in P&L so I only observe.



Fab Foodie said:


> Can't say I've witnessed much flaming in cycling threads



I agree, I think it is no where near melt down. I still maintain that this forum uses a good balance of modding and letting go with the flow. We need to keep on attracting new members, if it had done in the past where would it be. Younger members can bring an enthusiasm and it is interesting as they develop (sorry to me that sounds like I'm examining you under a microscope - I just meant for example Young Un when he was trying and succeeding at getting work experience in the bike shop).


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Admin said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> I linked to the thread that would give everyone a perspective on where your comments were coming from, and then offered the following _constructive_ advice:
> 
> ...



no that thread has nothing to do with it at all actually. You've completely misunderstood my point.

I've already made it perfectly clear that the classic bike poll was tounge-in-cheek and that an existing sub forum would be adequate until interest levels suggested otherwise haven't I !

I thought that my post was clear but perhaps not as clear as I thought 
I was referring to the past 6 months or so . It seems like membership has quadrupaled in that period, which is fantastic but there is certainly a lot more flaming imo. 


I'm not alone in noticing this and there was another thread some time back about this which co-incided with a member (or two?) being suspended I believe.

wish folk would actually read what is written. Arch kicked off after completely missing the point and not reading what I'd written.

As for trying other forums I find that a rather patronising remark Shaun, which is not like you. I have little doubt that I have been working with computers considerably longer than you have having started as a systems anaylst in 1975. (man from Uncle main frame computers)
I currently have over 20 forums tabbed on my browser which I visit frequently.


----------



## Gromit (4 Nov 2009)

Cafés in forums have always been for off subject chit chat, there are plenty of other rooms to talk about cycling. Life would be so boring if that's all people did. 

Its good to know what people get up to when they are not cycling, people do do other things besides propel themselves around by bike. So that is why we have this particular room. 

If you don't like it peanut then your quite welcome to go hang out in other parts of cyclechat.


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2009)

I don't consider this to be a 'moaning thread'.

My impression of this thread is that it is a gentle reminder to members to do a bit of 'self appraisal' now and again.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Archie_tect said:


> Threads are like television channels... you don't have to look at them if you know you'll not enjoy what they contain...unless you have a certain masochistic streak and like to suffer!



what a ill-concieved comment ? we are not discussing the *subject* of various thread topics here are we !
We are discussing the tendency for a certain element on CC to disrupt threads of a serious nature with their inappropriate inflamatory drivel .
By your argument we would have to ignore over half of the threads on CC


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Gromit said:


> Cafés in forums have always been for off subject chit chat, there are plenty of other rooms to talk about cycling. Life would be so boring if that's all people did.
> 
> Its good to know what people get up to when they are not cycling, people do do other things besides propel themselves around by bike. So that is why we have this particular room.
> 
> If you don't like it peanut then your quite welcome to go hang out in other parts of cyclechat.



Gromit you are another one who doesn't read the thread properly . No-one has commented in this thread about the nature of threads in the cafe section have they ??????

Maybe I need to put this in a way you will understand 

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CAFE OR THREAD TOPICS OR CONTENT .OK

its about flaming of threads on non cafe forums which have a more serious nature ie perhaps about requests for technical advice etc


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> Now then, now then, you lot, you lot!
> 
> 'ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's goin' on 'ere then?
> 
> ...



you're another one that can't read 

no-one has suggested we need more serious topics on CC have they ? 

We are talking about flaming of threads that have a serious topic . Why is that some people cannot seem to grasp what is written . ?Is it that they cannot read?

actually XmisterIS you are exactly the sort of person I am talking about on this thread. You are incapable of reading what is written, understanding the point and posting something which is relevant ,appropriate and adds something constructive to the thread. 

This was intended to be a serious discussion about something I believe is important and a serious issue ie flaming. You and others on CC just see it as another opportunity to flame and post your silly drivel.


----------



## rich p (4 Nov 2009)

I think you should calm down a bit. It's an internet forum not real life. Perhaps it's you not it that's the problem.
I, like Steve A and probably many others, also take time out now and again. Try it


----------



## summerdays (4 Nov 2009)

If you have a problem with a thread then hit the little red triangle - then the mod's know that it is starting to annoy people - they might take action against that person without you knowing (certainly sometimes the only reason I know someone has be banned is when they come back and tell others about the ban). 

The line between what is and isn't acceptable is a grey area rather than a sharp division. There are certain posters that can head towards that grey area for me ... but I've a tendency to just skip over their post rather than read it and get annoyed. Or if it got really bad I could put that poster on the ignore list - I've only done that possibly once or twice in the past and one of those has definitely left the forum since.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (4 Nov 2009)

I find myself sympathetic to both sides of this argument. I have posted myself a couple of times about the un-necessary personal attacks which seem to be part of Peanut's gripe. I have been subject to this on a couple of occasions, one notably for offering technical advice with which my attacker did not agree. To me the only sensible response is to ignore the attack and move on. However I do think this type of post has become more prevalent over the last few months, particularly in P&L, so I long ago excluded P&L from my new posts list.

On the other hand, it is easy to become over-sensitive to posts which do not concur with your own point of view, and frustration can provoke a less than logical response. I don't think there can be a solution to that by the forum, that is down to the individual, but the of such responses can do something about it:


Toughen up.......as I've said before, the forums are virtual worlds frequented by people we've never met or are likely to meet. Why take offence over a perceived slight from such a person.
Take a few days away, as has been suggested. I do regularly and it helps maintain my interest.
Read and post only in the forums with which you are comfortable.
If someone enters an irrelevent comment in a "serious" thread, why get wound up? The only person getting stressed is you. Ignore it and move on. Bear in mind that the "flamer" may only have wished to inject a little light-heartedness into a heavy-going subject.
One other thing, when your thread does not develop the way you hoped, remember that once posted, you will have no control over it, so there is no point in berating posters who in your opinion are not treating your topic with the reverence you think it merits. That is the nature of forums....and a good thing too IMHO.

Rambling over.


----------



## yello (4 Nov 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> _(Don't tell peanut, but I was be facetious! Shhh!)_



XmisterIS, I believe it is that kind of comment that peanut is talking about. Ask yourself, in all honesty, how does it help? It only fans flames and there really isn't a need to do that. 

Peanut posted a concern he has and wanted the comments of others. He didn't ask to be ridiculed or belittled. I think people have expressed similar concerns in the past (not the same one, but similar) so it's not unusual. I'd hold my hand up as someone that has voiced about CC not being exactly as *I'd* want it. But therein lies a part of the problem, and I realise it.... it's not my forum. So the problem's not the forum's, it's mine. I'm looking for too much.

So I need time away from CC now and again. It's not my one-stop shop and never will be. I'd agree with others, taking a break helps. Lowering your expectations *definitely* helps! And I genuinely mean no slight by that!


----------



## Shaun (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I've already made it perfectly clear that the classic bike poll was tounge-in-cheek and that an existing sub forum would be adequate until interest levels suggested otherwise haven't I !



Hmmm, I certainly didn't get that impression reading the thread, but maybe I missed something.



peanut said:


> I thought that my post was clear but perhaps not as clear as I thought
> I was referring to the past 6 months or so . It seems like membership has quadrupaled in that period, which is fantastic but there is certainly a lot more flaming imo.



Actually, re-reading your OP I've possibly made the same mistake as many others - I read "non-cycling" to mean the non-cycling _areas_ of the forum, whereas I think you mean _people_.

So yes, perhaps I missed the point a little! 



peanut said:


> I'm not alone in noticing this and there was another thread some time back about this which co-incided with a member (or two?) being suspended I believe.



I doubt anyone was suspended for saying what they think - I'm usually pretty open minded and like to try to take something positive from feedback, regardless of how it is presented.

Did the suspensions possibly prompt the feedback?



peanut said:


> As for trying other forums I find that a rather patronising remark Shaun, which is not like you. I have little doubt that I have been working with computers considerably longer than you have having started as a systems anaylst in 1975. (man from Uncle main frame computers)
> I currently have over 20 forums tabbed on my browser which I visit frequently.



Patronising, why? I think it's a rather sensible idea.

Comparing CC with other forums allows you to decide for yourself whether you prefer this place more or less than others. It gives you an idea of the content and management style of other places, and in turn allows you to balance that against how things work here.

In addition, you can observe whether _flaming_, as you put it, is a common feature of most all forums and not something that is exclusive to CC.

If you want to be able to do something positive about it, the simplest thing you can do is report posts / posters.

If you see a person flaming a thread, click on the red triangle (on the left under their user profile) and report it to me and the mods. The same goes for any thread you feel is getting pulled off-topic or hijacked.

This way if one particular person is doing it, or one particular forum is prone to this behaviour, a pattern will be evident and we can do something about it.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

rich p said:


> I think you should calm down a bit. It's an internet forum not real life. Perhaps it's you not it that's the problem.
> I, like Steve A and probably many others, also take time out now and again. Try it



we probably come here for very different reasons you and I.

You probably have different expectations. 

I notice that you like to breeze in now and again and make some humerous quip or other and breeze out ..thats fine.I like your style and humour .

I on the other hand use this forum for a different purpose . I have different interests and expectations than you .
I possibly have a more 'serious ' interest ...discussing and resolving technical problems, researching issues to give advice etc.

Each type of posting requires a different appropriate response. I'm not suggesting humour ,sarcasm, etc doesn't have a place I am suggesting that there is currently too much flaming going on, on threads that have a more 'serious' topic for want of a better word.


----------



## Auntie Helen (4 Nov 2009)

I haven't particularly noticed flaming of threads in the more technical forums (Accessories, Kit etc, Know How, Recumbent & HPV), it seems more something that is to be found in Café and P&L. But I quite like the amusing asides in Café and P&L as, after all, they are non-cycling parts of the forum. I don't stray into Commuting so can't comment on that but do you find flaming in the more serious areas, Peanut?


----------



## jonesy (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> we probably come here for very different reasons you and I.
> 
> You probably have different expectations.
> 
> ...



peanut, if your posting record was entirely free of posts that others might consider provocative, argumentative, or even offensive, then your complaint might carry more weight...


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Admin said:


> Comparing CC with other forums allows you to decide for yourself whether you prefer this place more or less than others. It gives you an idea of the content and management style of other places, and in turn allows you to balance that against how things work here.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shaun



the reason I started the thread was because I felt there had been an increase in flaming generally throughout CC over most of this year.

What goes on on other forums is completely irrelevant. other forums are run by different people with different policies rules etc and different membership. I can't see how any specific parallel can be drawn. 

On a general level yes I'm sure that one might notice a different level of flaming being tolerated . What relevance this has I'm not sure. I was commenting on CC and inviting comment from other members.

If I had a direct critism of the way this forum was run I would direct my observation to you privately , I do not . I think this is an excellent forum . 
That said the level of flaming lately has become a concern to me and I wished to comment on that .

Given the level of flaming, abuse, personal attacks, swearing and other disruptive and unacceptable behaviour tolerated from Bonj , Youngun and others this year I find it inexplicable that my reasonable observation and concerns should attract such criticism


----------



## Aperitif (4 Nov 2009)

'peanut' - why have you got 'expectations'? Why can't you dip in and be nourished (maybe not satisfied but) from what you read within, and then move on to one of your many other fora?(and enjoy the 'expectations' there...) Maybe it is a question of mentality...I dunno.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

jonesy said:


> peanut, if your posting record was entirely free of posts that others might consider provocative, argumentative, or even offensive, then your complaint might carry more weight...



we were not discussing provocative or argumentitive posts although I accept that in exasperation I have been guilty of the occasional rude or sarcastic comment, however we were not discussing this we were specifically discussing flaming

show me a single post that I have made that could be considered flaming or disruptive or non-constructive.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Aperitif said:


> Oh - one other thing.
> 'peanut' - why have you got 'expectations'? Why can't you dip in and be nourished (maybe not satisfied but) from what you read within, and then move on to one of your many other fora?(and enjoy the 'expectations' there...) Maybe it is a question of mentality...I dunno.



maybe its because we are all different Aperitif. I don't come here to receive I come here to give . That is my predeliction

If we all had the same interests and expectations wouldn't life be tedious and dull


----------



## SavageHoutkop (4 Nov 2009)

Having had a quick skim of this thread, and looked at the side-thread that Shaun posted to - 

(1) could we have examples of said flaming? otherwise everyone's just going to comment about their 'feeling' rather than looking at a particular example you are referring to?
(2) on the thread that Shaun posted a link to; where Arch has been accused of not reading what is written - if you hadn't used 'like everything else on Cycle Chat, anything new and useful or enthusiastically proposed is shot down in flames by the armchair knockers who sit on their flat bottoms, do nothing and critisize others for their efforts and interests.'. By starting with 'everything' you will get hackles up - a good piece of advice is never to use 'never' or 'always' when describing people's behaviour. There could have been a less confrontational way to state your view.

(and yes, noted that the thread I mention in (2) above is not one you started this thread for; but since the conversation has swung that way...)


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

yello said:


> I'd hold my hand up as someone that has voiced about CC not being exactly as *I'd* want it. But therein lies a part of the problem, and I realise it.... it's not my forum. So the problem's not the forum's, it's mine. I'm looking for too much.
> 
> So I need time away from CC now and again. It's not my one-stop shop and never will be. I'd agree with others, taking a break helps. Lowering your expectations *definitely* helps! And I genuinely mean no slight by that!



I think thats a very valid point Yello . Perhaps I am expecting too much . or rather I am being unrealistic in my expectations.

I suppose if these conversations were happening face to face in the office or pub then there would be a little more respect shown and less barracking but on the net ....well one can be abusive, argumentative,sarcastic, disruptive inconsiderate etc without fear of embarassement or repercussion.

I respect others .I respect their rights, their privacy, their freedoms, their possesions etc and I expect nothing less than the same respect in return . When that fails to materialise then look out


----------



## Theseus (4 Nov 2009)

SavageHoutkop said:


> (1) could we have examples of said flaming? otherwise everyone's just going to comment about their 'feeling' rather than looking at a particular example you are referring to?



I would like to see examples of the alleged flaming as well. It could be that I don't visit the forums or threads that they are on, but I can't recall any that have been bad enough for me to take note of.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Touche said:


> I would like to see examples of the alleged flaming as well. It could be that I don't visit the forums or threads that they are on, but I can't recall any that have been bad enough for me to take note of.



I think first you should look up the definition of 'flaming' in this context . perhaps when you understand the meaning of the word you'll see more evidence of it without the need for specific instances being pointed out.

I mean no critism Touche just that I think some folk have a different understanding of what flaming entails


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> actually XmisterIS you are exactly the sort of person I am talking about on this thread. You are incapable of reading what is written, understanding the point and posting something which is relevant ,appropriate and adds something constructive to the thread.
> 
> This was intended to be a serious discussion about something I believe is important and a serious issue ie flaming. You and others on CC just see it as another opportunity to flame and post your silly drivel.



I don't think that's fair. CC would be a dull place indeed if it was reserved solely for serious topics with no light hearted diversions every now and again. I see the threads - serious or otherwise - as more like a pub conversation, in that they evolve as they go, often splitting up into two or three separate conversations. I don't think you can seriously describe what _anyone_ is doing on this forum as "flaming".


----------



## SavageHoutkop (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I mean no critism Touche just that I think some folk have a different understanding of what flaming entails



which is why examples would be useful, otherwise some of us are off talking about apples while others are discussing watermelons.


----------



## Theseus (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I think first you should look up the definition of 'flaming' in this context . perhaps when you understand the meaning of the word you'll see more evidence of it without the need for specific instances being pointed out.
> 
> I mean no critism Touche just that I think some folk have a different understanding of what flaming entails



I am perfectly aware what forum/internet flaming is about. Like you I am not new to this. I have been active on message boards since JANET and before the advent of the www.

At one level, your response could be considered a flame. I stated that I would like to see examples of them, i.e. what do you consider to be flaming and you come back with what could be considered a personal attack. The presence of the smiley changes nothing as far as I am concerned, they are an irrelevance and should not be needed in serious debate.

To continue with your final point, I agree, it is for this reason I wanted to know what you were considering as a flame.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

SavageHoutkop said:


> which is why examples would be useful, otherwise some of us are off talking about apples while others are discussing watermelons.



I have already put a link to the wikipedia definition of 'flaming' if you can't be bothered to click on it and read it you can hardly expect me to answer your question can you.

Once you understand that flaming involves being deliberately disruptful and argumentative ,confrontational and adding nothing constructive to a discussion you'll begin to see examples of that in almost every thread on CC without someone having to lead you by the nose to it.

It is not a question of how bad or how much of it there is it is a question of it being there at all.

if someone hits you for no reason when you are trying to be helpful you're not going to stand and debate how hard they hit you are you

For example I am answering your questions and trying to be helpful even though you are flaming ie being argumentative disruptive and adding nothing constructive to the threads question geddit?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I have already put a link to the wikipedia definition of 'flaming' if you can't be bothered to click on it and read it you can hardly expect me to answer your question can you.



Hmmm. Got a problem with needlessly confrontational posts, have you?


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Having had a quick skim of this thread, and looked at the side-thread that Shaun posted to -
> 
> (2) on the thread that Shaun posted a link to; where Arch has been accused of not reading what is written - if you hadn't used 'like everything else on Cycle Chat, anything new and useful or enthusiastically proposed is shot down in flames by the armchair knockers who sit on their flat bottoms, do nothing and critisize others for their efforts and interests.'. By starting with 'everything' you will get hackles up - a good piece of advice is never to use 'never' or 'always' when describing people's behaviour. There could have been a less confrontational way to state your view.



Thank you for taking the trouble to work that out. At the time it sounded very much as is Peanut was writing the whole forum off, and that's very unfair on those who put in a lot of effort to keep it running - Admin especially. However, I see now it was all apparently 'tongue in cheek' so, that's ok then.

One other point, Peanut - Mods 'flaming' in threads. Mods are just members you know. We have opinions, ideas, bikes, the lot. When under our own names, we have the right to say what we like, within forum rules. If any of us were thought to overstep the mark, we'd be dealt with, and none of us have more power to do anything than anything else, and indeed we consult on most issues. Don't get hung up on the fact that someone who disagrees with you happens to be a Mod. If they post under their own name, they are doing just that - being themselves.


----------



## Mr Pig (4 Nov 2009)

I've been using Internet forums for a long time and generally speaking this one is pretty good. Has it gone down hill? Maybe slightly but I've yet to see any forum that gets it right all the time. Generally speaking I think the mods here do a good job but I'm not convinced they are totally impartial. 

From my experience I believe that the success of a forum is almost entirely down to the way it is moderated. Any forum will attract its share of bullies and how these people are dealt with shapes the direction of the whole place. I know a guy who reads this forum but will not join because of some of the abuse he's seen but really, compared to many forums this one is pretty good! 

For years I used a forum that was totally unmoderated, it was a disaster! The folk who ran it believed that people should be treated like grown ups and moderate themselves but it doesn't work. I've seen things spill over into the real world a number of times including legal action about things said online and a guy trying to get his nemesis sacked from his job by reporting him to his employers! 

Could this forum be tighter? Yes, but it could also be a lot worse! I just stay out of P&L and ignore the few people who think it's their job to try to push me around. It's not hard.


----------



## peanut (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> One other point, Peanut - Mods 'flaming' in threads. Mods are just members you know. Don't get hung up on the fact that someone who disagrees with you happens to be a Mod. If they post under their own name, they are doing just that - being themselves.



I wasn't getting hungup as you put it. I simply found your remark that my comment was a load of B****X as you so elequently put it , rather offensive.

re flaming I think that you will find that it contravenes the forum rules 

I have never used offensive language to you or anyone else on this forum, Mod or not and I don't think that kind of language is acceptable. Maybe its an age thing and you think its perfectly acceptable ?

Anyway I accept your apology for misunderstanding my comment


----------



## SavageHoutkop (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I have already put a link to the wikipedia definition of 'flaming' if you can't be bothered to click on it and read it you can hardly expect me to answer your question can you.
> 
> Once you understand that flaming involves being deliberately disruptful and argumentative ,confrontational and adding nothing constructive to a discussion you'll begin to see examples of that in almost every thread on CC without someone having to lead you by the nose to it.
> 
> ...



Whereas from my view I've posted a reasonable request, which is to see some of the posts you are objecting to; and all you've done is direct me to another site to look at their definition of the problem? If I read a definition of flaming, I could think that this post you've just made perfectly fits, and therefore is a flame. Unless you are being hypocritical, clearly you don't think it's a flame. 

We have now created two possible flames - my post and your reply - hence my previous request is now not necessary.... 

(Note: you haven't put a link to flaming as far as I can see, you just suggested I (well, Touche to be precise) should look it up) 

To re-iterate my (& Touche's) point, if there is a definition of flaming somewhere, there could be someone who thinks a particular post is a flame - and someone else who thinks it is *not* a flame - using exactly the same definition. Without seeing examples of what you consider flaming, my previous post aside, how can this discussion progress further?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (4 Nov 2009)

I've read all this and I too would find it helpful if Peanut would give a link to a post that illustrates the behaviours he's concerned about. 

Eight pages of unfocussed debate could be made more meaningful if we had an exact example to consider.


----------



## jay clock (4 Nov 2009)

It is a non issue as far as I am concerned. Firstly I have my settings configured to remove all the non cycling areas from "New Posts" which is how I access the latest chat.

If the concern is that areas supposedly dedicated to cycle-specific stuff in fact degenerate into non-cycling/personal attack, it is not something I have seen.


----------



## Shaun (4 Nov 2009)

I've removed some of the less constructive posts from the thread and unlocked it.

Please try to give constructive feedback and refrain from making personal remarks, they're not helpful.

If you can't think of anything constructive to post, then simply leave the thread alone and allow those who are interested to discuss it without interference.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## Wigsie (4 Nov 2009)

The way this thread has gone is quite interesting.... (thanks for unlocking Shaun). Would it be safe to say that most Forums suffer at the hands of their own success? Surely due to the ever increasing range of personalities.

I have had my differences with some and have had fallings out with others, If I felt I was in the wrong I have apologised and likewise some have apologies to me. 

Its about common sense, courtesy & manners, but it also helps not to jump off the deep end when you scan a message and presume you know what the poster meant. There are many regulars here old and new and many opinions of people are formed from post historys which can lead to judgemental assumptions but I would suggest more often than not on here its not intentionally malicious.

The mods do a good job generally I feel and where sometimes can be a little judgmental and one sided surely its just human nature? they are not robots after all?

Sporadic periods away will help us all from time to time, as does giving examples help but only if done sensibly (don't have to name and shame as that will only end badly).


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I wasn't getting hungup as you put it. I simply found your remark that my comment was a load of B****X as you so elequently put it , rather offensive.
> 
> re flaming I think that you will find that it contravenes the forum rules
> 
> ...




At least I spelt b*ll*cks right...

An age thing? My dear, I'm 40. Does that make me a young whippersnapper?


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

Anyway, to try and be constuctive for a mo.

Lots of people have commented that drivers and so on get more bad tempered at this time of year. The dark nights, the cold weather, it gets people down, even if they don't realise it. IF (and it's big if) there's been more stress on the forum recently, maybe that's the reason. We're all people, we go through cycles of stuff.

I say a big if, because I don't think there's been much of a change. I tend to stick to certain sections, so I have no idea about Race, or the more technical side, but the sections I do visit seem much the same.


----------



## Wigsie (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> I say a big if, because I don't think there's been much of a change. I tend to stick to certain sections, *so I have no idea about Race*, or the more technical side, but the sections I do visit seem much the same.



Can we keep ethnicity out of this for a change Arch? 








Is that flaming?


----------



## rich p (4 Nov 2009)

Wigsie said:


> Can we keep ethnicity out of this for a change Arch?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought it was an injection of lighthearted banter but apparently it's now called flaming.


----------



## Wigsie (4 Nov 2009)

TBH this thread is the first time I have ever heard the term....


----------



## Speicher (4 Nov 2009)

Along the sames lines as Arch has suggested, I think people can easily get bad-tempered at this time of year, or perhaps they are not as patient as they would normally be. If you add in other reasons for people not being their usual more easy-going selves, like injury, illness, worry about family/friends and job security, it is not surprising that the posts get critical/dismissive etc. 

If you were face to face with someone under those circumstances, you might more easily realise that they were generally upset/angry at other things and not just at the previous poster. 

I am strongly of the opinion that at difficult times of the year/other difficulties, to put it in the vernacular, "cutting some slack" is needed, on both sides. I do hope you understand what I am trying to explain.


----------



## XmisterIS (4 Nov 2009)

yello said:


> XmisterIS, I believe it is that kind of comment that peanut is talking about. Ask yourself, in all honesty, how does it help? It only fans flames and there really isn't a need to do that.
> 
> Peanut posted a concern he has and wanted the comments of others. He didn't ask to be ridiculed or belittled. I think people have expressed similar concerns in the past (not the same one, but similar) so it's not unusual. I'd hold my hand up as someone that has voiced about CC not being exactly as *I'd* want it. But therein lies a part of the problem, and I realise it.... it's not my forum. So the problem's not the forum's, it's mine. I'm looking for too much.
> 
> So I need time away from CC now and again. It's not my one-stop shop and never will be. I'd agree with others, taking a break helps. Lowering your expectations *definitely* helps! And I genuinely mean no slight by that!



I do post facetious comments sometimes (well more than sometimes!) because I like to take the mick in a light-hearted way! I mean nothing evil by it. You'll notice people taking the piss out of me too and it doesn't bother me - it makes me laugh.

I do confess though that I will mercilessly rip the p1ss out of anyone. Just ask my mates in the real world! They take the p1ss out of me too, but we never do it in a nasty way. The trouble is that the intended tone of _"I'm just messing with you"_ doesn't come across on the internet.

So if I have got your back up in any way Peanut and you do feel bullied by me, I wholeheartedly apologise


----------



## pubrunner (4 Nov 2009)

C'mon fellas, why don't we all 'chill out' a little ?

We (broadly) have a common interest in cycling; it is hardly 'worth' falling out over peripheral differences.

Why don't we try focusing on exhibiting a bit more goodwill all round  ?


----------



## Dayvo (4 Nov 2009)

pubrunner said:


> C'mon fellas, why don't we all 'chill out' a little ?
> 
> We (broadly) have a common interest in cycling; it is hardly 'worth' falling out over peripheral differences.
> 
> Why don't we try focusing on exhibiting a bit more goodwill all round  ?



Indeed!

Let bygones be bygones and let's get this bygone section up and running!


----------



## pubrunner (4 Nov 2009)

Dayvo said:


> Indeed!
> 
> Let bygones be bygones and *let's get this bygone section up and running*!


+1


----------



## pubrunner (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> An age thing? My dear, *I'm 40*. *Does that make me a young whippersnapper*?



In relation to *me*, you *are* a young whippersnapper.

Those heady carefree & reckless days of being 40. 

I'd love to be 40 again; or 41, or 42, or 43 . . . . . . .

At least I've still got my own hair and teeth ! 

It was gently suggested to me recently, that I get a hearing aid


----------



## 661-Pete (5 Nov 2009)

Hmmm.... just got back from taking a turn on one of the astronomy forums - where I've been rounded upon by one of the admins for being a wee bit 'out of line'.

I.e. complaining. 

Count your lucky stars, CycleChatters everywhere!


----------



## 661-Pete (5 Nov 2009)

pubrunner said:


> In relation to *me*, you *are* a young whippersnapper.
> 
> Those heady carefree & reckless days of being 40.
> 
> ...


Ditto _(*contemplating the impending big six-oh*)_


----------



## Noodley (5 Nov 2009)

661-Pete said:


> Hmmm.... just got back from taking a turn on one of the *astronomy forums* - where I've been rounded upon by one of the admins for being a wee bit 'out of line'.
> 
> I.e. complaining.
> 
> *Count your lucky stars*, CycleChatters everywhere!



<groan>


----------



## 661-Pete (5 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> <groan>


*Heavens* above! I never noticed! _(actually that's a  - I did it on purpose)_


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2009)

I'd always imagined that the FNRttC threads would consist of worthy advice about tyre tread and lights. Instead of which they're about a bunch of friends rabbiting on about nothing much.

Which is fine.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (5 Nov 2009)

Not sure if this should be in 'site feedback' but is the locking/unlocking/deleting what caused Wigsie's new post yesterday to pop up in the middle of the 'tree' rather than at the bottom below some older posts?


----------



## Arch (5 Nov 2009)

pubrunner said:


> In relation to *me*, you *are* a young whippersnapper.
> 
> Those heady carefree & reckless days of being 40.
> 
> ...



If I wanted to, I could read that as suggesting that I don't....

I do, honestly. In fact my hair, carefully styled to look like brillo pad most of the time, is a right nuisance, as everyso often I have to endure a trip to the hairdressers to keep it out of my eyes....


----------



## Davidc (5 Nov 2009)

Sometimes Peanut's OP proposition's about right, other times it isn't. I'll join in, have a go at other people, deliberately wind other people up, and often get the same back from them. I'll also try to be helpful when there's a cycling query I know something about, and I'll ask for comments if I want to know something. I try to avoid being rude (usually), but accept that some people will be. Thats life, and it applies to web forums as well.

I belong to several web forums (well, 6 + this one), one of the others is cycling and much more formal, and the others are related to other interests. All have a café equivalent, four have a P&L equivalent, the others have campaigning instead.

This one's more liberal than most in what stays posted, and unlike some allows posting before moderation and doesn't censor off-subject posts or posts which don't follow the 'party line'. That means I waste much more time here than on the others - and did when I just read it before I joined it!

The other side of this forum is that it is a cycling forum, and contains a lot of good helpful tips and interesting cycling related material. It's that I enjoy cycling more than most activities which brings me here - it's often non cycling related threads which keep me here much longer than I should be, and if they get argumentative that's fine by me!

BTW Arch, 40 is definitely young whippersnapper territory even if it is ancient compared to some on here!


----------



## Arch (5 Nov 2009)

Davidc said:


> BTW Arch, 40 is definitely young whippersnapper territory even if it is ancient compared to some on here!



Wow, cool, I will endedavor to act more like a whippersnapper in future, whatever that is...


----------



## Norm (6 Nov 2009)

There seems to be peeps from all political shades, socio-economic classes, geographies, ages, trades and professions, all seem to be represented in the CC community. And, IMO, any community so diverse is almost guaranteed to generate friction.

Our shared interest is a strange one. Whilst it is a form of transport, it is a relatively localised form of transport so there are not that many group meets. If the shared interest was car, for instance, people would possibly drive 100+ miles to meet, natter and see what people were driving. There's less impetus for this sort of thing on CC.

Because we don't know the personalities, there is a greater potential for keyboard warriors to mouth off with impunity. There is a greater possibility for misunderstandings to occur when you don't see the glint in the eye of someone who is having a gentle dig at, for instance, punctuation mistakes.

I think CC is run well, Shaun and the Mods (that should be a pop group from the 1960s) do an excellent job, I can't think how I'd do anything differently. The place is set up so that commuters can keep out of the wheel tracks of those interested in racing, who have a whole different set of questions and problems. The boxing ring which is P&L is segregated so that only those wearing the correct protection enter the fray.


----------



## Lisa21 (6 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> I think CC is run well, Shaun and the Mods (that should be a pop group from the 1960s) do an excellent job, I can't think how I'd do anything differently. The place is set up so that commuters can keep out of the wheel tracks of those interested in racing, who have a whole different set of questions and problems. The boxing ring which is P&L is segregated so that only those wearing the correct protection enter the fray.



+!, Shaun does a brilliant job...and deserves a medal at times I am sure.

I am on a couple of other forums-horse related ones-although hardly venture on them anymore as I much prefer it hereand anyone who thinks it gets a bit argumentative here should venture into the horsey world-you'd have your eyes opened.
I dont know if its because the majority of posters there are women although for some reason the horsey world is a very bitchy place imo, but it is just non stop bitching, backstabbing, bullying and belittling all the time, thats why I cant be bothered with it anymore.
On here, yes there are arguments and fall outs and the occasional troll (Hi Blazed) but 99 out of 100 people on here are sound, helpful, and a lot of fun, and the friendly banter, fun, good friends and occasional talk about cyclingmakes it a great place to belong.

Cheers Shaun, you do us proud


----------



## Arch (6 Nov 2009)

Norm said:


> I think CC is run well, Shaun and the Mods *(that should be a pop group from the 1960s)* do an excellent job, I can't think how I'd do anything differently. The place is set up so that commuters can keep out of the wheel tracks of those interested in racing, who have a whole different set of questions and problems. The boxing ring which is P&L is segregated so that only those wearing the correct protection enter the fray.



Will the lady mods have to wear sequinned dresses nd beehive hairdos and sing the 'be wop' bits?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (6 Nov 2009)

I was always more of a Rocker, myself.


----------



## Norm (6 Nov 2009)

A mod who is a rocker... those over-night long hauls must just wizz by.


----------



## bonj2 (16 Nov 2009)

oooh, there's been a flouncing!  he's flounced!


----------



## Noodley (16 Nov 2009)

bonj2 said:


> oooh, there's been a flouncing!  he's flounced!



Not to worry, I'm sure he'll follow the lead of other flouncers and return as peanut2


----------



## Rhythm Thief (16 Nov 2009)




----------



## Bandini (16 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> When Mods start flaming and making personal attacks on other members and use abusive and insulting language I think its time that some sensible moderation was intoduced.
> 
> personally I blame the rise of the L&P forum . I believe that a lot of the topics and language used is not appropriate to a cycling forum but that is just my opinion. The negative aspects of the L&P forum are starting to spill over onto other sections as they look for 'easy 'prey' to flame.
> 
> I think CC is heading for a C+ or ACF type meltdown shortly if things continue as they are



I don't. I love it. 

I am new to cycling (for many years) and the site, and therefore clearly not as venerable as you, but it seems that the title of the site and the forums suggest that this is a site that attracts many people that like to chat to people with a similar interest - but also people who share other interests and traits? 

I like the fact that you get threads that are humorous and interesting, and they may share other interests - for example, a love of the countryside or... the people I ride with, I ride and will be riding with because they are good company. And the same if I am talking about bikes. 

I know it is a cliche, but 'change the channel' - find threads for you - as everyone else does, I am sure?

I hope you are not outraged by the views of what you may see as a dilatante, but I can see that biking is a broad church. Yes, I want to know about technical stuff etc. - but I might just like to verbally mess around with people who are interested in something I am interested in?

I think sometimes people who are not used to not being agreed with see it as flaming? I am not saying that is you but it is common.


----------



## tdr1nka (17 Nov 2009)

Well said that man!

Welcome aboard!


----------



## Norm (17 Nov 2009)

Bandini said:


> ...but I can see that biking is a broad church.


That's the bit which I didn't figure out until after I'd joined here. 

The congregation includes petrolheads looking for alternative ways to get their kicks and people who haven't had a car in years, students who think £100 is a lot for anything which isn't alcoholic and peeps who blow £5g to shave a few seconds off their TT times, people who ride for business, and pleasure, road racers and people who never go near tarmac... it's a mixed bunch and I reckon the admin & mods have a pretty tough time on their hands just trying to keep up with it all.


----------



## jay clock (17 Nov 2009)

In reply to the original posting, it is really simple



> What happened to serious discussion about cycling related topics ?
> 
> I just selected 'new posts ' and I am struggling to see 5x serious bike topics in the first 20 threads.


I just set things up so that when I select "new posts" it avoids the areas I don't want to read about. I am only really interested in discussing cycling on here, so L&P (for example) does not get listed on "new posts".

So 99% of what I read is cycling related. Easy. Simples even


----------



## bonj2 (17 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> Not to worry, I'm sure he'll follow the lead of other flouncers and return as peanut2



I didn't flounce, I just wanted to reset my post count.


----------



## Noodley (17 Nov 2009)

bonj2 said:


> I didn't flounce, I just wanted to reset my post count.



aye, sure.


----------



## Happiness Stan (17 Nov 2009)

peanut said:


> I'd be interested to see if there are any other CC's that are getting thorughly fed up with the non riding section of CC that seem bent on disrupting every thread with their stupid flaming.?



Was it ever thus?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Nov 2009)

Happiness Stan said:


> Was it ever thus?



Err, truly sorry, but I don't think so at all.

And I have no idea who Peanut's 'non-riding section' are (apart from just being a convenient label for people who annoy him - which seems to be a lot of people!). There's one or two people I can think of here who don't cycle that much and they are generally quite polite. 

I have six bikes and I don't drive at all. I've commuted for years, toured, been a club rider, done sportives, raced XC and more. 

But you know what? I find talking about _just_ cycling a bit dull! (collective intake of breath...)

However, believe it or not, I find other cyclists to be generally more interesting, articulate, educated, polite and open-minded than most, so talking with other cyclists about politics, music, and all kinds of other stuff, whether it's just casual conversation or a more intense discussion, is... really rather agreeable.


----------



## Bandini (18 Nov 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> However, believe it or not, I find other cyclists to be generally more interesting, articulate, educated, polite and open-minded than most, so talking with other cyclists about politics, music, and all kinds of other stuff, whether it's just casual conversation or a more intense discussion, is... really rather agreeable.



I have found that - certainly on this site. There is the odd ill informed bar room bigot, but I enjoy listening to their bollocks. Very entertaining. 

Which is why I love this site:

*www.ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyou*golivethere.com

Sorry - forgot how to do links, so you will need to input it.


----------



## Panter (18 Nov 2009)

Bandini said:


> I have found that - certainly on this site. There is the odd ill informed bar room bigot, but I enjoy listening to their bollocks. Very entertaining.
> 
> Which is why I love this site:
> 
> ...




Clicky


----------



## Bandini (18 Nov 2009)

Panter said:


> Clicky



Cheers Panther. Is there a site that I can go to, that you know of, so I can relearn how to do it? I used to have a template that I cut and pasted into.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Nov 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> But you know what? I find talking about _just_ cycling a bit dull! (collective intake of breath...)
> 
> However, believe it or not, I find other cyclists to be generally more interesting, articulate, educated, polite and open-minded than most, so talking with other cyclists about politics, music, and all kinds of other stuff, whether it's just casual conversation or a more intense discussion, is... really rather agreeable.



Exactly my feelings. I was on a lorry drivers' forum before I registered at C+ (as it was then) and the quality of the discussion outside of lorries, jobs etc. was sometimes dismal. It's much better here.


----------



## Arch (18 Nov 2009)

Bandini said:


> Cheers Panther. Is there a site that I can go to, that you know of, so I can relearn how to do it? I used to have a template that I cut and pasted into.



You type:

{url= then your web address, then } then the word you want displayed, then {/url}

only replace the curly brackets with [ ] and take out the spaces


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Nov 2009)

Panter said:


> *[*URL="http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/"]Clicky[/URL]



Like so.


----------



## Bandini (18 Nov 2009)

Cheers you two.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Nov 2009)

Bandini said:


> I have found that - certainly on this site. There is the odd ill informed bar room bigot, but I enjoy listening to their bollocks. Very entertaining.
> 
> Which is why I love this site:
> 
> ...



I visit it regularly to remind why I never bother visiting Have Your Say. It's funny until you realise these are real people who really think these things, and probably spend a lot of time thinking them...


----------



## Panter (19 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Like so.



I just highlight the word I want to become a link, then press the insert link button (the one that looks like the Earth behind a chain link icon) and enter the URL into the drop box that appears.


----------



## Arch (19 Nov 2009)

Panter said:


> I just highlight the word I want to become a link, then press the insert link button (the one that looks like the Earth behind a chain link icon) and enter the URL into the drop box that appears.



Oh well, if you're going to go and tell people the _easy_ way...

I just do it the way I do, because that's the one I learned, and I can be a bear of very little brain sometimes...


----------



## Speicher (19 Nov 2009)

Panter said:


> I just highlight the word I want to become a link, then press the insert link button (the one that looks like the Earth behind a chain link icon) and enter the URL into the drop box that appears.




wooo hoo that works, why am I so surprised? It has only taken me two years to get the hang of that. Thank you Panter. 

The "other way" seems so much more complicated.


----------

