On 31/8/07 19:48, in article ,
"BAC" wrote:

snip

The fact a person cannot be prevented from posting doesn't mean that readers
have to accept whatever is posted as reasonable, nor do they actually have
to read what has been posted from a source they dislike and distrust. A
constant 'tit for tat' feud between group contributors will probably kill
off the group for the purposes of sensible discussion, pretty quickly.

But a group in which one person is able freely to post poor information will
flourish if he/she is unchecked or unquestioned because he or she is kill
filed or ignored for the sake of p&q?

Already one outstandingly
valuable contributor no longer posts and another posts very rarely and it
is
because of the way Puce has behaved here to people she dislikes. I have
been told that directly. Last time she started on this sort of mud
throwing
I said she had brought this group to an all-time low and quite a few
people
agreed. So it is up to those of us who want this group to continue to be
enjoyable and to offer help of a high standard, to see that it does so.

And how do you suggest that should be done? You can't prevent Helene from
posting, the only actions you can influence are your own and those of people
of similar opinion. The way I see it, there are three possible strategies :-
(a) 'Jump' on her at every opportunity in an attempt to make posting here
so unp-leasant she desists.
(b) Ignore her.
(c) Make peace.

Strategy (a) probably wouldn't work - I can't see her folding her tents and
stealing away in the night because people have been unpleasant to her, it
would probably just attract retaliation.
Strategy (b) would eliminate direct tensions between the 'warring' parties,
a bit like the Cold War, and there would probably be two rival camps within
the group, each appearing to ignore the other.
Strategy (c) would be the best solution, in theory, but I fear that
particular horse bolted ages ago.

None of the above should be necessary and that is something you consistently
overlook. If anyone - anyone at all - is mistaken is what they post here it
should be possible for anyone else to correct it without being the victim of
abuse.


There isn't one other person on urg who flies into an outrageous tantrum
just because someone else disagrees with the advice they've given.
When I was corrected the other day for suggesting sheep should be put onto
land to be cleared, I took the correction instantly and didn't feel
remotely
tempted to start calling the other posters by a whole raft of insulting
names, involving their age, appearance or families. There is only one
person here who behaves precisely like that and it should not be allowed
to
snowball into "oh that's just how she is". Ignore her behaviour for fear
of
her disgusting temper and we will get the group we have allowed urg to
become. I'm sorry to pontificate like this but the change in this group
over
a year or so is really alarming. snip

What sort of group do you think urg will become if it is characterised by a
continuous exchange of insults between two warring factions? I've seen a
group where virtually every post from any source is examined by each faction
for partiality to the other, or for 'ammunition' in the war, and it
eventually kills off 'normal' discussion entirely. I do hope you find a
solution, because the combined expertise of group members is a very valuable
and stimulating resource, and it would be a shame for it to be lost.

I wonder what you think I've been saying or indeed, why I've bothered to say
it. I give up.
snip

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove weeds from address)
'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children.'