Kitchen telephone

[Roch]

Progressing to where? All we have at the moment is people suggesting they have information that proves Sheila is guilty but not one of you can say what it is. How is that progress?

Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant.  He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be.  For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing. 

I already stated my case clearly, regarding the references issue.  There have been incidents in the past where documents (fully referenced etc.) where posted up.  The attitude was equally scoffing (presumably because some of the references related to material not on this forum).  This is what I meant about double standards by some on here.  They want referencing when it suits; and it relates to the body of material on this forum. 

Sometimes it's not what is asked for - but the ways it is asked for.  For example, if the post refers to material that is not this forum - the inference seems to be the poster has something to hide by not posting up a reference.  They are being dishonest or chancing their arm.

The scoffing remarks such as 'room 101' etc. are not going to encourage serious posters to either provide references or continue to engage.  To me - treating members like that is a form of gatekeeping on the forum.

I summed up my views regarding flippant dismissive remarks here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400614.html#msg400614

[guest2181]

Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant.  He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be.  For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing. 

Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?

Advice which you thanked me for.

[Roch]

Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?

Advice which you thanked me for.

No.  I was referring to the allegation document.

[Roch]

Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?

Advice which you thanked me for.

Sorry, yes I was referring to that document - but not in relation to the references argument.  When I was arguing about the references issue - I was referring to the allegation document.

[guest2181]

No.  I was referring to the allegation document.

I don't know what that is.

I think your comments about references is not really a true representation of the facts.

I cannot accept something to be true on hearsay, if references are given but referenced material is not available then I still have nothing to base an opinion on.

The same would be true regardless of the information and whether it potentially assisted either argument with regards to guilty or innocence.

I asked Bill where his information was from, I don't think that was unreasonable. We don't know what it referred to, with further information and context we may have been able to offer him a more informed opinion.

The 101 joke from Caroline was quite funny. You may not have thought so but I did.

[guest2181]

Sorry, yes I was referring to that document - but not in relation to the references argument.  When I was arguing about the references issue - I was referring to the allegation document.

That was me right there, stopping the forum progressing then?

[Roch]

I don't know what that is.

I think your comments about references is not really a true representation of the facts.

I cannot accept something to be true on hearsay, if references are given but referenced material is not available then I still have nothing to base an opinion on.

The same would be true regardless of the information and whether it potentially assisted either argument with regards to guilty or innocence.

I asked Bill where his information was from, I don't think that was unreasonable. We don't know what it referred to, with further information and context we may have been able to offer him a more informed opinion.

The 101 joke from Caroline was quite funny. You may not have thought so but I did.

You're not taking on board anything that I've tried to express, regarding common courtesy.  Some people will simply not hang around or engage when it is lacking.  To that extent it's horses for courses. 

There is more material in this case, other than the material solely based within this forum.  That is smply a fact and there is nothing that you or I can do about that.  It certainly shouldn't be held against those who may have access to it -  though I take your points about context and interpretation.     

I've stated my feelings very clearly.  There is a cockiness and arrogance on here that is off-putting to other potential posters taking part.  I'm openly accusing you of being a key element in this.  Given the back-drop of this whole discussion, your opinion about Caroline's remark simply validates my own opinion.

I'm not expecting anything positive to develop from this disagreement.  If it does then it does and if it doesn't then so be it.  I really want to leave this here - so I'm choosing not to respond further.

[Caroline]

Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant.  He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be.  For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing. 

I already stated my case clearly, regarding the references issue.  There have been incidents in the past where documents (fully referenced etc.) where posted up.  The attitude was equally scoffing (presumably because some of the references related to material not on this forum).  This is what I meant about double standards by some on here.  They want referencing when it suits; and it relates to the body of material on this forum. 

Sometimes it's not what is asked for - but the ways it is asked for.  For example, if the post refers to material that is not this forum - the inference seems to be the poster has something to hide by not posting up a reference.  They are being dishonest or chancing their arm.

The scoffing remarks such as 'room 101' etc. are not going to encourage serious posters to either provide references or continue to engage.  To me - treating members like that is a form of gatekeeping on the forum.

I summed up my views regarding flippant dismissive remarks here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400614.html#msg400614

I don't recall ANY such incidents but if claims are made they should be backed up.

Sorry you found the room 101 joke offensive - I'm not sorry I said it though. I've had a LOT worse thrown at me - it was a joke but recently you seem to have lost your sense of humour. I'm sure Bill wasn't offended by anything that was said yesterday. There was nothing wrong with the debate until you came out all guns blazing.

You may have a utopian ides of what the forum 'should' be like and perhaps we all do, however, we're all different people, with our own personalities and view points. If people choose not to post they will have their own reasons for not doing so, blaming this on the people that do post is counter productive because it's all that is keeping the forum going. You disappeared for quite some time but you returned of your own free will and I am sure others are capable of making that choice too. 

[guest2181]

You're not taking on board anything that I've tried to express, regarding common courtesy.  Some people will simply not hang around or engage when it is lacking.  To that extent it's horses for courses. 

There is more material in this case, other than the material solely based within this forum.  That is smply a fact and there is nothing that you or I can do about that.  It certainly shouldn't be held against those who may have access to it -  though I take your points about context and interpretation.     

I've stated my feelings very clearly.  There is a cockiness and arrogance on here that is off-putting to other potential posters taking part.  I'm openly accusing you of being a key element in this.  Given the back-drop of this whole discussion, your opinion about Caroline's remark simply validates my own opinion.

I'm not expecting anything positive to develop from this disagreement.  If it does then it does and if it doesn't then so be it.  I really want to leave this here - so I'm choosing not to respond further.

You haven't stated anything clearly, you keep trying to use things to justify your abusive outburst. I don't really understand your references argument.

It is interesting that you wish to suddenly garner these moral standards and apply them to myself alone. Surely there are others more deserving.

I admit that I am extremely sceptical when these various smoking gun claims of innocence are made, it is not due to arrogance, merely from experience of what has gone before.

I did not treat Bill unfairly or mockingly in any way. I think you are floundering.

Happy to leave it here though, along with any respect I previously had for you.

[Roch]

I don't recall ANY such incidents but if claims are made they should be backed up.

Sorry you found the room 101 joke offensive - I'm not sorry I said it though. I've had a LOT worse thrown at me - it was a joke but recently you seem to have lost your sense of humour. I'm sure Bill wasn't offended by anything that was said yesterday. There was nothing wrong with the debate until you came out all guns blazing.

You may have a utopian ides of what the forum 'should' be like and perhaps we all do, however, we're all different people, with our own personalities and view points. If people choose not to post they will have their own reasons for not doing so, blaming this on the people that do post is counter productive because it's all that is keeping the forum going. You disappeared for quite some time but you returned of your own free will and I am sure others are capable of making that choice too.

I'm responding because I last responded to Hartley. 

I feel there is a distinct lack of common courtesy shown in certain situations - which is counter productive to the forum's benefit.  Some members have become insular and too used to squabbling, scoffing, being generally dismissive and making cocky remarks. 

None of this aids the forum in being an inclusive place for genuine debate.

These are my opinions and whether people agree with them is up to them.  I've made several points now repeatedly, for example the double standards imposed by the referencing police on here - who think eveything should be linked to the material solely on this forum.  A ridiculous notion, given all the material that exists outside of this forum.

I dont want to go round in circles - I've said my bit and that's it.  Members can either be accommodating to other posters or off-putting.  It's their choice / your choice.

 

[Caroline]

I'm responding because I last responded to Hartley. 

I feel there is a distinct lack of common courtesy shown in certain situations - which is counter productive to the forum's benefit.  Some members have become insular and too used to squabbling, scoffing, being generally dismissive and making cocky remarks. 

None of this aids the forum in being an inclusive place for genuine debate.

These are my opinions and whether people agree with them is up to them.  I've made several points now repeatedly, for example the double standards imposed by the referencing police on here - who think eveything should be linked to the material solely on this forum.  A ridiculous notion, given all the material that exists outside of this forum.

I dont want to go round in circles - I've said my bit and that's it.  Members can either be accommodating to other posters or off-putting.  It's their choice / your choice.

 

I haven't seen a single person complain about any references outside of the forum, if they have other sources then they would be welcomed. Or are you saying you think it's perfectly OK for someone to say something exists and the rest of us should just accept it?

You yourself showed a distinct lack of courtesy yesterday. I don't think in all the time I have been here I have dropped to the level of using the 'f' word. No one was unaccommodating to Bill - we responded to his post and gave an opinion - then we asked for a reference in order that the quote had context then all hell broke loose.

[Roch]

I haven't seen a single person complain about any references outside of the forum, if they have other sources then they would be welcomed. Or are you saying you think it's perfectly OK for someone to say something exists and the rest of us should just accept it?

You yourself showed a distinct lack of courtesy yesterday. I don't think in all the time I have been here I have dropped to the level of using the 'f' word. No one was unaccommodating to Bill - we responded to his post and gave an opinion - then we asked for a reference in order that the quote had context then all hell broke loose.

The allegation document was referenced to the hilt.  All of the Holmes system references etc etc.  It was dismissed out of hand by certain members on here - because much of the material in the referencing was not contained within this forum.  If we have controlling members on this forum dismissing everything out of hand simply because it cant be linked to material on this forum - then this forum is existing in a silo.  That's my point.

I havent fully checked the end notes in the report on the West thread - so I dont know if its' referenced to stuff solely on this forum or elsewhere - but I know that Bill does reference his work.   

Put your self in a posistion of someone willing to post on here who has had access to material eslewhere.  If you are dealing with people known to make flippant, dismissive remarks - is there not a risk that you could think - what's the point in bothering? -  It's the wrong arena to debate in. 

That's my point.

[Caroline]

The allegation document was referenced to the hilt.  All of the Holmes system references etc etc.  It was dismissed out of hand by certain members on here - because much of the material in the referencing was not contained within this forum.  If we have controlling members on this forum dismissing everything out of hand simply because it cant be linked to material on this forum - then this forum is existing in a silo.  That's my point.

I havent fully checked the end notes in the report on the West thread - so I dont know if its' referenced to stuff solely on this forum or elsewhere - but I know that Bill does reference his work.   

Put your self in a posistion of someone willing to post on here who has had access to material eslewhere.  If you are dealing with people known to make flippant, dismissive remarks - is there not a risk that you could think - what's the point in bothering? -  It's the wrong arena to debate in. 

That's my point.

OK, I don't know which document you are talking about but I would be interested in reading it.

Having said that - remember the letters I posted from Jeremy and the absolute abuse I got for doing so? I was asked to post them and when I did the usual feeding frenzy ensued and I was called a liar. You know that I am not a liar and I appreciate you posting on my behalf. I also witnessed the affect of haloperidol recently but again, more abuse when I stated it and when I posted the proof - yet more abuse. However, the point is that the kind of behaviour you are talking about is on BOTH sides and is inherent. Scepticism is also a 'product of' the forum because of past claims that promised so much, yet came to nothing.

[JackieD]

Well you just did - not only did you take notice, you took the time to reply!

I have no intention of helping or hindering but for all your efforts, where is Jeremy now?

I put you on a par with chopped liver and you can't skip from forum to forum because you're banned!

You are the rudest and person on the forum, you contribute nothing so perhaps Roch should scold you out because if anyone would put off new posters or posters who want serious debate - it's YOU!

That is funny when you are always in the middle of trouble when posts have to be removed
I am over the moon you are amongst the tiny band of guilty posters

When you were an innocent poster you did absolutely nothing to help Jeremy
Zilch
It's a very poor performance after thousands of posts and you sat on the computer day and night

You would have thought you could have found at least something
New
Never mind

[Caroline]

That is funny when you are always in the middle of trouble when posts have to be removed
I am over the moon you are amongst the tiny band of guilty posters

When you were an innocent poster you did absolutely nothing to help Jeremy
Zilch
It's a very poor performance after thousands of posts and you sat on the computer day and night

You would have thought you could have found at least something
New
Never mind

You don't know what I have found or haven't found but if I found nothing, it would be no more or less than what you have discovered.

You've been banned from here more times than I've had hot dinner and you whine like a baby when your get posts removed - personally, I never complain if Maggie removes my posts. I trust her judgement.