New barbel section!

[Chris Pearson]

Blam,
But surely you can't blame the people that ARE posting for the lack of articles from people like yourself for NOT posting.
I'm not sure what you class as "abuse" as prior to the last article, started deliberately by B2B's I haven't seen any abuse.
Also you say its safe to sit behind a keyboard be we aren't the ones with anonymous handles.
Why don't you open up and tell us what you have been doing,whats worked,what hasn't ,where have you been,where would you like to go,dip your toe in it might be fun,you might even decide to join us on a fish-in and get to know us,we're not as bad as we're being painted you know-honest!
Some of the recent anonymous comments on your BFW site were aimed at us after spending quality time having a few AND having a laugh.

 

[BLAM]

Chris if you right click on BLAM it should tell you more.

I've thus far posted on 4 or 5 barbel threads pertaining to method, tactics and discussion and started one thread. A quick scan of those threads doesn't immediately suggest you have contributed likewise.

When you say "we" are you claiming to talk for the whole of Fishing Magic or are you purporting to be a Royal?

 

[Chris Pearson]

Blam,
Not having a go mate,and I'm not the one complaining about the content,I'm happy with (or was)the posts,don't feel the need for detailed analysis here (find that elsewhere),just enjoy the banter, but if that's what floats your boat then that's fine too.
The "we" I was referring to are just the "3 ****heads " or "3 amigos" as B2B's affectionately calls us.
It's great that you've made a positive contribution on something that interests you,just trying to say that not everyone's of the same view,we can be a broad church surely?

 

[BLAM]

Chris. Fair points.

 

[GrahamM]

Baz wrote: "I said that it would be used for other means than to discuss barbel topics. Meaning peoples own personal agendas and it has been. You have admitted as much in the first paragraph of your own posting."

Baz, there isn't a forum section on the site (on the net even) that hasn't been used at some time or other similarly, but there is a world of difference between having some banter along the way, while people discuss the serious issues, and someone who simply jumps onto threads for the sole purpose of causing trouble and then jumps off having done so. 'Hit and run' did I see it refered to not long ago?

Why should you single out a new barbel section as a section that will suffer from 'personal agendas' when we know they all do? Why be negative about the new section before it had hardly wet a line?

What was the point? All it achieved was to sew doubts and to give you the satisfaction of being able to say later: "told you so."

There is every chance that the barbel section will suffer more from personal agendas and banter. I would be surprised if it didn't.

Why? Because barbel are a very popular species and lots of passionate barbel anglers visit this site. And long may they do so. That doesn't mean that other species will be neglected, or other species pushed out of the way to make way for them.

What you have to remember is that there will be maybe half a dozen who will find the 'hit and run' tactics highly amusing.

But there are probably a few hundred who find them nothing but spoilers.

I love the banter, you know that, and all regular visitors to FM will know that. But the secret to banter being good fun is knowing when it 'fits' and when it doesn't. Using 'hit and run' tactics is just having personal fun (own agenda) at the expense of a lot people who don't want it.

OK, maybe the new barbel section is suffering from an overdose of 'personal agenda' right now. But one thing is for sure, you don't have to suffer it if you don't want to. It's the easiest thing in the world to keep off it rather than just jump on to point out how crap it all is.

 

[Chris Pearson]

Graham,
What I really don't understand,and would genuinely like to, is why when you know the response he will generate do you continue to let B2B's post articles specifically designed to imflame the very passions you criticise.
Seems to me very simple,if Bob was stopped from constantly publishing negative articles having a go at the BS, its elected officers and HPS there wouldn't be a response so why do it and then complain when we get upset?

 

[BLAM]

I think Barbel Taliban is amusing, whoever he is.

 

[Baz]

I didn't single anything out Graham. All I did was to make a comment.
It was obvious to most people what was going to happen.

 

[Baz]

you don't have to suffer it if you don't want to.

Is this the new phrase of the month then?

 

[Baz]

Graham.
I had to think for a moment about your Hit and Run tactics comment, which I take was meant for me.

Yes, I did make that comment, it was on the 'Carp' forum thread, which got deleted. which I had accidentally put on there. I honestly thought that thread was on bait box, otherwise I would not have done it.

If it makes you and others happy to deliberately take my comments out of context, as has happened in the past then you are welcome to it.

 

[GrahamM]

Chris wrote: "What I really don't understand, and would genuinely like to, is why when you know the response he will generate do you continue to let B2B's post articles specifically designed to imflame the very passions you criticise."

Chris, what I don't do (knowingly anyway) is publish personally insulting stuff, but I do think it right to publish 'opinion pieces' and even rants when they're written in a proper manner. In Bob's latest article he doesn't have a go at any individual in any way whatsoever. He does criticise the Barbel Society and these pages are open to the BS and anyone else to counter that criticism with an article of their own.

I don't take sides, in spite of the accusations and implications I keep reading. The fact that Bob has written half a dozen opinion pieces and no one, other than on the forum, has written a reply, is simply due to Bob submitting articles and the objects of his criticisms not submitting articles.

Of course I'm happy to see articles that inflame passions and rankle readers. Tell me of an editor that doesn't. But like any editor worth his salt he also leaves his pages open to replies. There is nothing at all wrong with healthy debate providing it's done in a proper manner without resorting to childish insults. And no, I'm not pointing the finger at anybody there, I'm merely making the observation that petty insults say more about the insulter than the insulted.

"Seems to me very simple," Chris wrote, "if Bob was stopped from constantly publishing negative articles having a go at the BS, its elected officers and HPS there wouldn't be a response so why do it and then complain when we get upset?"

I'm not complainuing about you getting upset, I'm just not very happy about how you respond. Your first post was to post a link to a psychiatry site. Another of your posts was to say, "Wonder how he got on with the mahseer, thought we would have had an interesting article about that rather than more regurgitated shite about the BS."

Come on Chris, is that the right way to reply? Is that going to counter anything that Bob wrote? Is that going to make the BS go up in anyone's estimation? Take a leaf out of Steve Pope's book. He counters the argument in a much stronger manner, and none of it insulting even though Bob's criticisms were directed at him and the organisation he obviously loves so much.

 

[GrahamM]

Baz, I'll leave it to others to say if I've been unfair with you, and I'll be standing by to apologise if it turns out I'm wrong.

 

[Tony Rocca]

Graham, its unfair to compare a Steve Pope reply to a Chris Pearson reply. Steve is speaking as the Chair of the BS and as such acts accordingly.

If CP were in such a position, god forbid, you would see simlar restraint.

As for being seen in a bad light for Bobby baiting, the inbox on my mail has never been so full of complimentary letters, so I disagree, respectfully of course in your case.

 

[Chris Pearson]

Graham,
Thanks for replying.
4 points really:
1/I don't think Bob deserves a dignified response I have no respect for the man whatsoever.
2/Re. the mahseer jibe, everything was fine whilst he was away,I was questioning why he chose not to tell us about his adventure but instead preferred to resurect his attacks on the BS officers - why?
3/Finally I don't think Steve has responded to Bob,he responded to Fred's thread and rightly acknowledged that the BS code should be discussed in the right place i.e. at the next committee meeting.


4/You claim to not take sides,why is it then you never criticise Bob for his insulting language used against the "3 ****heads" even after you said you wouldn't let it continue, he did?

 

[Chris Pearson]

Cheers Tone,I take it that I best not be relying on your vote at the next election ;-)

 

[Baz]

I'm sorry Graham,
But if you are asking members of this forum to pass judgement on me, then please don't bother.
I think it is about time me and this site parted company.

Thanks to everybody for their time.

 

[Tony Rocca]

I had a lot of difficulty posting yesterday and some of my more creative posts were lost, can you shed any light Graham?

Baz, no need to go, it isnt real life. Stay many appreciate your input.

 

[Tony Rocca]

Furthermore Graham, I did not see any condemnation of the sily posts following Eddie Streets latest rant. Im sure Eddie felt as strongly about his views as Bob does about his. One might conclude a certain Bob bias afoot in the control room.

 

[EC]

I will hold my hands up regarding Mr Streets rants, and the subtle changes that took place within that thread, possibly accidentally engineered by myself!

Maybe I have no right, BUT, as a regular contributor here, I take exception when people use this, MY forum, for their own personal agenda, and contribute nothing else whatsoever to this site, as was the case with 'Mr Street'. If people come on and take the p*ss in that respect then their threads get treated with the contempt that they deserve, I do not recall anyone at that time taking me to task!

The really sad thing however was Jason Fisher including pickled onion flavour monster munch as one of his favourites, I mean ffs he is the one who should be banned!

 

[Chris Pearson]

Eddie,
Here,here!