Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I personally get quite confused with the quote box - I mean who said that particular bit? what did it refer to in context? When I quote something (which is not really that often when looking at the bigger picture of course) I cut out the long waffling bits I do not feel relevent to my query or comment.


The whole fisking bit grumbles me slightly more so that it seems to be the "in" thing with work emails these days with all sorts of companies AND applied with different colours depending on whos responding! What is the world coming to?

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

>

> > - no reason why females can't enjoy such a

> pastime

> > KK.

>

> I've been enjoying fisking in the Drawing Room

> since that room's inception.


LM! I wouldn't have thought you of all ppl were into THAT kinda thing! *gobsmacked*

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM! I wouldn't have thought you of all ppl were

> into THAT kinda thing! *gobsmacked*


You should try it. May I suggest that you partake only in the Drawing Room as that's where you'll achieve the biggest thrill. And if you can manage to perform it on an inordinately long post - preferably on one of Huguenot's threads, well then we are talking Royal Icing on Exquisite Cake...the ultimate fisk!;-)

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Though if you are going to pick on Huguenot, try

> not to throw tomatos at him. Poor boy...


I know he's no longer of these shores and I know I've never actually seen him, but Huguenot is a forum hottie surely, and warrants not anyone's pity...

For my part, I can't stand people quoting an entire post, just to add a two word reply at the bottom.


With regards quoting a section of someone's post, I don't see the problem, so long as you're not intentionally putting it out of context.


If a poster has written a 2000 word post, and then there are five posts following it, I will often quote a section of their post in order to avoid confusion as to what part of a discussion I am addressing. Don't really see how anyone can lose sleep over such a practice.


I agree that to take every point made, and answer them individually, is a bit pathetic, and self involved. However, I see no problem with addressing a couple of points seperately, if you feel strongly enough about a couple of points to bother.

I really don't care how people post. If I don't like it, for whatever reason, I skip passed it and move on. I do get irritated however by people who complain about how other people post. It suggests that they have some authority over what is correct, that somehow their way is better than anyone elses. It feels as if they want to impose a view onto others by making negative comments about another view.


This is a forum. It is open to all (provided they follow the rules) and really, who actually cares how they post? It's too divisive to comment about such trivia, in my opinion.

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...

> With regards quoting a section of someone's post,

> I don't see the problem, so long as you're not

> intentionally putting it out of context.


Yep, spot on.


Lots of people only read the the last few posts of discussion (as I have just done) and including a relevant quotation can help make my point more concise and readable for others, or as HAL said earlier "to provide context without forcing readers to scroll up".

I really don't care how people post. If I don't like it, for whatever reason, I skip passed it and move on. I do get irritated however by people who complain about how other people post. It suggests that they have some authority over what is correct, that somehow their way is better than anyone elses. It feels as if they want to impose a view onto others by making negative comments about another view.


This reminds me of a friend of mine who used to use this forum in the early days. His spelling is shite, as he'll be the first to admit, but one day, another poster, who my friend had disagreed with, rather than arguing a point with my friend, basically said "you can't even spell, so what the f**k do you know about anything". Made my blood boil, and made my friend stop using the forum altogether.


For the record, the other person involved is no longe a regular poster (not sure they ever were).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That's the milquetoast triangulation that's delivered so much electoral success to the Lib Dems locally and nationally! 🤣
    • Amazing. Now could you cut and paste an AI summary of the defence case for Andrew M-W? 
    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  5. Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility. With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...