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

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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