# I'm very pissed off and thinking of abandoning urban75



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

After PK's latest outburst and the general more and more mainstream atmosphere here I'm pretty fed up.

Do I want to be associated with a website that finds this bigotry acceptable?

I'm really not sure I do?  





			
				PK said:
			
		

> Well as someone raised in South London I probably have more right to comment on the issues surrounding the changing face of Brixton than most people.
> 
> I do believe that the moderator of this forum (or should I say the OWNER of this forum because he sure acts like it) isn't doing his job and Moderating debate, he is positively Stifling debate.
> 
> ...



What a racist idiot. If this sort of poster and his ill-informed, half-baked arguments are acceptable to Editor/Mike, they certainly are not to me. 

Utterly clueless. Utterly simplistic. A complete mis-understanding of who I am and what I do. This black/white thing - see my previous post about "not just talking to one black bloke called Winston and thinking I know something". 

Just because you think it is odd for a white guy to say plainly and openly "I think it's a shame the u75 parties are so white, it's not what I'm used to" (for instance) doesn't mean others do. You just don't get it do you. If it's true, it's true. It doesn't matter what colour the person saying it is. And I may not be born here, but i've lived in South London 20 years and I live in the middle of Brixton NOW!

Only people who haven't a clue about who I really am think that I'll support "the Jamaican viewpoint" (whatever that is) unquestioningly. In reality I speak as I find. But some of the sidelining and sanitising of Jamaican/Jamaican British people and interests in Brixton is real.






			
				PK said:
			
		

> I just don't like the "misfit" mentality that someone who does fuck all but moan has more right to live in Brixton than a young professional, nor do I like open drug dealing in the streets, nor do I like the attitude of complacency within certain sections of the Jamaican community as regards the crack trade - which is 99 percent a Jamaican trade - I don't like needles dumped by junkie scum in childrens play areas, and I don't like pubs that play endless boring lovers rock compilations to it's moody patrons.
> 
> Even if I still lived in the area I'd sooner move out and let the Claphamites take Brixton over, than see the type of shit Loughborough Junction has become, a place of great history and significance buried under the weight of petty drug feuds and pub landlords in fear of their lives because of some shithead surplus junkies who benefit nobody but moan the most - and indeed cost Lambeth council the most.



PK - so you grew up in London? Well, you must have become a very out-of-touch adult since. Shame on you.

Responding to your ignorant criticisms:

1) I don't just moan. I've stood as a Green Party candidate. We came second. I was active in that Paddick campaign. I spend a fair amount of time attending Brixton Forum meetings and planning meetings. I went to the licensing hearing for Harmony to support them against just this sort of prejudice: see 2)

2) "endless lovers rock compilations to moody patrons" - what an insult! You suggest patrons of whatever pub in Brixton you are talking about are moody. That's just how the most ignorant (white generally) people stereotype the blacker pubs without even going in. You are part of that ignorance.

3) Loughborough Junction - Keep up. The two pubs are about to be renovated. Due to the interference of me and other concerned locals the Green Man will now not just be flats but have a health centre underneath. I helped do that. Is that nothing?

Go away. 

-----------

What am I left with after this?

I don't bother conversing with people like this in real life. I don't want to see it here. If this was my site I'd have banned PK ages ago for this sort of shit. Not because I don't like a variety of views but because this is racist bollocks. Even if he's just baiting me, it's insulting and offensive.

This sort of crap is beneath me and my friends and if that's the level here on urban75 I don't want to be here anymore.

I also will continue to believe that some of the changes in Brixton are negative and and the demands of a more conservative new type of consumer (usually professional and white, but not always) are oppressive.

I'm prepared to step back a bit regarding some other criticisms of my moderating style. In exchange I expect people's support regarding offensive bollocks like PK's post.  I don't care if it was a wind-up. It is shit.

If that's the shit that is urban75, then I'm gone.


----------



## flimsier (Apr 1, 2004)

Ehy do you feel you have to raise this on the forum. If you have a problem with mike and the other mods, why don't you raise it with them first. 

Only polite, like.

If I had a problem with some poster, I'd ask the mods directly what they thought they should do about it.

Why didn't you answer him on the thread (wherever it is).

I think you're being touchy and stupid, and thus if you're going to be like that, I won't miss you, but I think this FAQ busting thread should be binned, for a start.


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 1, 2004)

sits back and waits for all hell to break loose.


----------



## flimsier (Apr 1, 2004)

I also think that only certain types of people leave with a big strop like above. I find them curious.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

No, leave it. I want this discussed. But I'm not going to be contributing until I see the conclusion of this. And then maybe not. I haven't decided whether to leave or not. But I think I have decided that if this sort of nastiness is allowed here then it's probably not the place for me anymore.


----------



## Loki (Apr 1, 2004)

I would say the first post by PK you quoted is out of order by him and deserves some kind of an apology.  You've met PK in real life haven't you?  He's nothing like as cheeky really.

I hope you two can get over your differences. Please don't go.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 1, 2004)

It's your choice, Hatboy.

If you want my opinion (you probably don't!) I'd say rise above it. Don't let it get to you. You've both had your say, you and pk. Both of you need to let it go now.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

Hatboy, check your ego, mate; you're embarrasing yourself.  This thread should be binned.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 1, 2004)

i think u should stick around, but give up the moderating... things are out of control right now, and it appears to be based partly on your inability to separate moderating and posting.. whatcha think? this forum would miss you if you werent here in some capacity, and i think you would miss it...


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> i think u should stick around, but give up the moderating... things are out of control right now, and it appears to be based partly on your inability to separate moderating and posting.. whatcha think? this forum would miss you if you werent here in some capacity, and i think you would miss it...



I think I suggested the same thing a few days ago, on a different thread.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

So the racism is ok? Mm.


----------



## loud 1 (Apr 1, 2004)

i cant see anything wrong with that,and i certainly dont see it as racist,the only instants ive been a bit 'upset' wid mr hatboy,was when he said that most,if not all male posters on u75 are ugly and geeks.

not fine talk for a moderator.

but besides that,i think PK brought forward his point of view,and i think it would be a good idea to see if anyone else agrees,not about personal comments,but about your use of the power of moderator.


altho all in all i dont give a fwuk..


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> So the racism is ok? Mm.



It was quite cutting, but I'm not sure I'd call it racist.  Exactly why do you think it's racist?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 1, 2004)

loud 1 said:
			
		

> the only instants ive been a bit 'upset' wid mr hatboy,was when he said that most,if not all male posters on u75 are ugly and geeks.


   

Sorry, but that IS funny.

*gets coat.*


----------



## zubaier (Apr 1, 2004)

i dont think pk was being racist either actually ?? definitely trying to wind u up tho, and it looks tho he succeeded... u guys have history tho i think...

out of interest, how did you come to be a moderator?


----------



## Domski (Apr 1, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> So the racism is ok? Mm.



I don't think pk's post is any more racist than saying that Brixton is becoming a 'paler reflection of itself in more ways than one'... In all honesty, there's a much nastier undertone in that, than in the up front nature of pk's comments. I think the last thing he is is a racist, but apparently I'm bigotted so my opinion doesn't count.

I'm sorry you've had a rough and tumble few days hatboy - I actually don't think (but people will disagree) that much of it has been personal - I think it's been objective - in the same way that you should be more objective as a moderator of this forum.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 1, 2004)

erm can you refference the original thread pls HB then I'll capable of commenting, one out of context quote doesn't give a fella a lot to go on, it could be out of order it could be that in the context of the original it's just another spat on urban...

Cheer

 

Garf


----------



## maldwyn (Apr 1, 2004)

Don’t leave, I actually enjoy reading your Brixton passions. Maybe take a break from being a mod, but I seriously can’t believe you’re letting this scrap get to you.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

Where's the racism? The emphasis in the whole post, and especially "the crack trade - which is 99 percent a Jamaican trade".

99% eh?  Crap.


----------



## kea (Apr 1, 2004)

it's up to mike who he has as moderators innit. so i guess it's up to him to say what he thinks about all this.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

The comments from PK are lifted from page four of the "should people who don't live in Brixton... etc" thread.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 1, 2004)

loud 1 said:
			
		

> i the only instants ive been a bit 'upset' wid mr hatboy,was when he said that most,if not all male posters on u75 are ugly and geeks.




you said this HB ...hmph cheeky fucker ... it's not like your wayne sleep youself   I'll have you know i'm gourgous, everyone tells me so, inc you when your hammered


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

Hatboy, why don't you put your future to a poll?  The options being: remain as a poster; remain as a moderator; remain as a poster and moderator; go.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> out of interest, how did you come to be a moderator?


What is this, the Spanish fucking inquisition? Hatboy has put a hell of lot of time and effort into urban75. I have clashed with him often but I think the shit he has had lately from people is totally out of order. 

As has often been said, the Brixton forrum is not like the others because it is about a real-world place with a lot of complex problems. Even the London forum isn't like it because it covers all of London and so that sense of contiguity is greatly diluted. 

_Of course _everyone is welcome to contribute but why are we seeing a lot of people who don't live in Brixton and don't use the forum regularly coming in and attacking hatboy?  What if a load of people who don't use the drugs forum all that much piled in and started attacking the moderator there? It would be crap. 

Hatboy -- please don't leave.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos - Why don't you go f...... no I can't say it.    

Thanks IntoStella.

Anyway I'm just going out..... I may be gone for sometime.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Come back soon.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What is this, the Spanish fucking inquisition?



no, a simple question, as i said, out of interest... now DOWN GIRL!


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> why are we seeing a lot of people who don't live in Brixton and don't use the forum regularly coming in and attacking hatboy?



Because he's a very poor moderator.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 1, 2004)

Dont go HB - you're (IMHO) an important part of U75 and it's character, and you're clearly an important local activist in Brixton and should be a voice on the boards.

However, given your sometimes (often?) abrasive posting style, perhaps you might expect to have some attacks at times?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> no, a simple question, as i said, out of interest... now DOWN GIRL!


ha de ha. More misogyny to go with the nasty undercurrent of homophobia round here lately.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> ha de ha. More misogyny to go with the nasty undercurrent of homophobia round here lately.




hhmmmmm

personally I can quite see someone saying "Down Boy" in the same same circumstances.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> ha de ha. More misogyny to go with the nasty undercurrent of homophobia round here lately.



I think it's disingenouus of you to imply that people's 'issues' with Hatboy are fuelled by homophobia.  It occurs to me that the only 'undercurrent' here is the growing consensus that, as decent a bloke (and poster) as Hatboy may be, he's not a very good moderator.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 1, 2004)

cant u just stop being so aggressive? your attitude, indirectly, is part of the reason hatboy's thinking of leaving... but anyway, i cant be bothered arguing with you, sorry if i offended you by saying 'DOWN GIRL'. ok?


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 1, 2004)

hatboy - as i said on the other thread, i'm in broad support of your viewpoint and i have a tremendous amount of respect - admiration, even - for your pro-activeness and commitment. i think that this forum would be a lot poorer for your absence. 

but as i also said on that thread, your passion for a particular view of / hope for Brixton can, to those who don't share your view or your background or even your commitment, come across as quite judgemental and aggressive. this is not a criticism per se - you're honest to the nth degree and you're consistent and everything. 

but your level of passion and your very definite worldview is inevitably going to rub people up the wrong way. this doesn't mean you should alter your stance - god forbid - but it DOES mean, as others have said, that every now and again you're going to take flak for it. especially if people feel that there is a conflict of interest in your posting and moderating (i'm not saying there IS, i'm just saying some people do tend to perceive it that way).

i can understand why you're fucked off, but i hope you stick around. whatever i think of pk, he's one poster. he's not the Voice Of The Brixton Forum any more than you are....


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 1, 2004)

HB, please don't leave the boards, it would be a lesser place without you. I appreciate the effort you've put into u75 and clearly you do a lot of good stuff locally. I enjoy your posts and value the information you give us all here. It'd be a shame (and tragically ironic) if some incorrect, ignorant views and assumptions made here - the very things you are against - made you leave u75. 

Maybe we need to reaffirm some of the rules here. As a start, i'd say no personal abuse whatsoever. IMHO, any personal abuse should be reported to a moderator and the perpetrator given a minimum of a week's ban. There's no reason, as adults, that we can't refrain from personal abuse. It's simply not necessary.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 1, 2004)

OK, I don't 'belong' on the Brixton board but I will have my say then fuck off.

The past few days have, in my opinion, seen some of the nastiest personal attacks, insults and shit that I have ever read here in 2 years.

What is all this stuff in the FAQ about personal attacks on other posters or moderators? Does it not apply here?

When people start getting hurt, it's time to call it a day and put a stop to it. I am not saying that Hatboy doesn't have his faults, he does, like all of us.

Things have been said today and yesterday that have caused alot of anger and resentment. OK, I know it's a message board and things happen and it does 'liven' things up but I just think it's gone a bit too far.

That's it, I've said what I have to say now I will fuck off.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> It occurs to me that the only 'undercurrent' here is the growing consensus that, as decent a bloke (and poster) as Hatboy may be, he's not a very good moderator.


No, that's just your personal opinion. 

zubaier, try looking up hypocrisy in the dictionary. 

Whether people actually live in the Brixton area or not, I think it is only logical that it is for those people who use the forum a lot to take up any issues they have with the moderator. 

It looks mighty stinky when a load of people suddenly arrive and start  lynching the moderator for being bad at his job. And mighty disingenuous too. Athos, you don't really care if hb is a good mod or not. You just want to have a crack at him because of what he believes.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2004)

Brixton Hatter said:
			
		

> As a start, i'd say no personal abuse whatsoever. IMHO, any personal abuse should be reported to a moderator and the perpetrator given a minimum of a week's ban. There's no reason, as adults, that we can't refrain from personal abuse. It's simply not necessary.




spot on.  And then some.


A few days ago I was feeling quite critical of Hatboys role as mod (clarification: not as poster or human being).  These battles have made me somewhat less so.  Apart from anything else I can't imagine why anyone would want to be mod of this forum.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> No, that's just your personal opinion.



Have you read this thread, and the others?  It's clearly not just me questioning whether Hatboy should be a moderator.



> Athos, you don't really care if hb is a good mod or not. You just want to have a crack at him because of what he believes.



That's not true.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Stobart Spotter said:
			
		

> OK, I don't 'belong' on the Brixton board


 No, you belong as much as anyone. For one thing, you have always been a regular contributor and taken a keen interest in what is going on in brixton. Which is more than can be said for some people who have suddenly turned up and decided that hatboy is no good at his job.


----------



## LDR (Apr 1, 2004)

Hatboy - I think you are one of the most, if not the most, passionate posters on the Brixton board and I would be very, very sorry to see you go.  So don’t. 

Without you I would never have seen and understood the parts of Brixton that you hold so dear and I am extremely grateful for that.

However, because of this passion and your very direct posting style I think you sometimes lose objectivity when moderating and I do understand why others are sometimes upset with you.  Also nobody likes be called boring, mainstream, etc and because of your insinuations that people on Urban75 are like this or at least becoming like this, (rightly or wrongly) it’s putting people’s noses out of joint.  

I’m not taking sides and saying you shouldn’t speak your mind, but you shouldn’t be surprised when others rise to it. 

Whatever you decide I wish you well.


----------



## FreddyB (Apr 1, 2004)

I dont live in London, never been to Brixton and only been on urban a few weeks so view my opinion on that basis. 

Dont go, the world is full of racist elitist fucks with too much to say for themselves. At least when they turn up here in "your world" you have an oppurtunity to argue with them and possibly even adjust their attitudes. Its obvious from reading a few of your posts your not going to be swayed to their way of thinking and I agree with others who've commented, you are somewhat abrassive but in my experience thats the way with people who want change. 

Stay and argue for what you beleive in, the blokes a twat its only by "moaning" about issues that concern us that people are made aware of them. If they dont agree then thats up to them, its no reason to run off.

Just my opinion for what its worth.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> zubaier, try looking up hypocrisy in the dictionary.



in relation to what exactly?  Am i overly aggressive?  or do you think my attitude has contributed to hatboys departure?  i havent posted on any of the offending threads, so to be honest i dont know what you're on about?

i've met hatboy just the once, and he was lovely.. granted i was a bit fucked at the time, but nevertheless he went out of his way to introduce me to lots of people which i appreciated.. hes a good soul..


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Hatboy, check your ego, mate; you're embarrasing yourself.  This thread should be binned.


Athos - go fuck yourself sideways with a broomhandle. See it is *really* easy to be a troll!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 1, 2004)

Ok, I have done a poll on Community. It's up to you lot now, but you know my opinion.


----------



## Dr. Christmas (Apr 1, 2004)

*Sad, to be honest...*

hatboy can be very annoying (see endless semi-trolling of politics forums last year) and I have crossed swords with him in the past but I reckon he's pretty much alright.

he also has a different style of posting and obviously isn't on these boards for popularity which is to be commended, even if it does rub people up the wrong way.

I don't post much in this forum, but I know brixton well having many mates in the area (none of whom post here). The debates have been very interesting surrounding gentrification, community action, etc. However recently it has become a bit of a free for all dogfight with pointless jibes and achingly dull personal disputes being recycled more often than cotton nappies.

if that's allowed to continue unchecked then not many people will visit this forum for info or general chat anymore which would be a great shame. Given the physical location of U75 it would be madness to have a Brixton forum trolled into tumbleweed status by a very few.

As for PK, I can't fathom how he hasn't been banned ages ago, given his continual threats of violence, serial abuse of individuals, calling ern a nonce for which he refused to apologise, and the general verbal Daily-Star style diaharretic spasms which usually characterise his posts.

People keep going on about what a lovely bloke he is in real life, but there is not a shred of evidence of that from his posts. Rather than be wound up by him, hatboy, I suggest you report any racism and leave Mike to deal with it.    

And stick around.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

FreddyB said:
			
		

> I dont live in London, never been to Brixton and only been on urban a few weeks so view my opinion on that basis.
> 
> Dont go, the world is full of racist elitist fucks with too much to say for themselves. At least when they turn up here in "your world" you have an oppurtunity to argue with them and possibly even adjust their attitudes. Its obvious from reading a few of your posts your not going to be swayed to their way of thinking and I agree with others who've commented, you are somewhat abrassive but in my experience thats the way with people who want change.
> 
> ...


 Well said, liberal idiot boy


----------



## LDR (Apr 1, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> .....he went out of his way to introduce me to lots of people which i appreciated..



As he did with me too, he was really concerned that I was having a good time and made should I wasn't intimidated by anyone. Basically he kept an eye on me which he was under no obligation to do.

Thanks Hatboy for that.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Where's the racism? The emphasis in the whole post, and especially "the crack trade - which is 99 percent a Jamaican trade".
> 
> 99% eh?  Crap.


Yeah but that is typical pk hyperbole isn't it?


----------



## aurora green (Apr 1, 2004)

This is all getting ridiculous.
I dont know where to start, but I just wanted to say a few words in support of Hatboy, in the hope of cheering him up a bit and hoping the he doesn't leave here, for as others have said, it would be a much duller place without him. He is a character.
A character in true Brixton stylee. Which may be a bit difficult, a bit uncompromising, a bit moody maybe, but with wit and passion and honest. 

He has often pm'ed me if I haven't been posting for while, or if a thread starts that he knows I'll be interested in (Loughborough junction related) and I have actually complemented him on the way he nurtures this board.
Obviously, I dont read everything, and some people have such a deep grudge, I just cant see myself how all this is justified.

He and I have lived here for about the same time, about 15years, and that length of time fully integrating with the community does give you a special insight into an area, so all this 'he's not even from here' nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Hatboy dont listen to the likes of Athos and PK, who dont live here and yet think they know it all, you belong here, just as you belong on the streets of Brixton.

Peace everyone


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Hatboy, why don't you put your future to a poll?


Hey that's a good idea. Who wants to have a vote on the future of Athos at the same time since we're going down this route? (Free response).


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 1, 2004)

There is a poll, I have done one on the Community board.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

aurora green said:
			
		

> He and I have lived here for about the same time, about 15years, and that length of time fully integrating with the community does give you a special insight into an area, so all this 'he's not even from here' nonsense is just that, nonsense.


  In a nutshell.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Hey that's a good idea. Who wants to have a vote on the future of Athos at the same time since we're going down this route? (Free response).



It's nice to know I mean so much to you.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Hey that's a good idea. Who wants to have a vote on the future of Athos at the same time since we're going down this route? (Free response).


 Well it's 100 per cent in favour of hatboy staying so far.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I think it's disingenouus of you to imply that people's 'issues' with Hatboy are fuelled by homophobia.  It occurs to me that the only 'undercurrent' here is the growing consensus that, as decent a bloke (and poster) as Hatboy may be, he's not a very good moderator.


Athos you are being disingenuous in continuing to try to stick in the knife and stir things when you are on record as having criticised the Editors policy on not allowing vicious little neo-fascist racist twats on here (you want them allowed on here), and now you butt into the Brixton forum despite not living in Brixton, or even in London, and having no sympathy with what the Brixton Forum is about in the first place. Since you obviously don't care about Brixton or the Brixton forum why else would you try and provoke and persue one of the moderators? Now coming on with your sickly "he's a nice guy" crap just shows you up as the insincere little creep you are. Whatever the pros and cons of hatboy's moderating style I'm only persuaded to defend him when I hear your poisonous little stabs that you can't hold back from making for no reason whatsoever, and at an entirely innappropriate time. Making further personal insultts and trying to trollishly wind someone up when they are obviously upset and saying they are going to leave is the behaviour of a spiteful child and totally fuckwitted troublemaker.

Now having *yourself* asked for this thread to be binned please desist from posting anything further on it.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 1, 2004)

ok read the thread here's my tuppence worth.

HB's main gripes seem to be those of many areas of london, that is to say that they are being over run by (what i term) new money, who have little intrest in the local area and just want the lable of living in some where chic, they then spend their entire time trying to turn this chic new place into a carbon copy of the suburban hell hole they left.  This makes for dull culture forces those whom have lived their for ages feel like forginers in their own streets and worst of all strips away the indviuality of the area, making it another chelmsford/ bedford/ everyother middle england town.  which is fair point. and vaild.

HB expresses himself in a some times whimiscal fashion, sometimes with great aplomb sometimes like a stroppy brat.  

the issue here is who doesn't?  are moderators to be devoid of all human emotions when posting, making descions?  

If the question is consistancy, then you will find that this is very hard to achive.  Even on a non hierachical board, you can find that consistancy is hard to achive even if all have the power...

If the issue is account ablity then i think that HB has often shown himself to be accountable for his actions on and off line, and has when appropreate apologised.

As for the question of his posting persona, here's the way i see it. there are some posters you like their style some you don't that's it.  

as for his moding style i think it is hands on and at times over egare this is not as far as i can see vindictive but usually out of frustration.  The comments made after the edit in the body of the text can often be quite cutting.  

bans should not be used as night sticks to beat people over the head with, however it is reasonable to warn people before removing them from the forum.  on a busy board with lots of traffic then it is understandable that tempers get frayed.  

HB has already said that he is going to keep this in check, so i see little issue.

People should get off HB back.

As for the intial question, HB i think that you are reading more into pk's post than is there.  It isn't offensive it's his opinion, and it certainly isn't worth quiting the boards over, even slightly...


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 1, 2004)

If Hatboy goes I think I might too. But don't let that encourage you HB.   

PK's alleged racism, criticism of HB's moderating style, plus some other things have mixed together in a noxious brew. It's an unstable situation which could get truly nasty or end up all luvy-duvy. So I'll see how things turns out before deciding to perform a solidarity-flounce.

Apart from liking and admiring HB on a personal level I think his moderating style is just right for this forum. He's one of the most honest and up-front people around. Which is exactly what's needed on this (quite unique) forum.

It's the heart of urban75 (IMHO) where cyber and reality meet. Hatboy, as a person who'll say nothing behind your back he won't say to your face, and always his own man, is the perfect moderator for this forum.

He's eccentric, passionate, big-hearted, very fair and very honest. Maybe I'll propose marriage.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 1, 2004)

I've been watching this and staying out of it, so I'll just say this: Hatboy, don't go. Your contributions are important.
EVERYONE needs to grow up and stop getting so personal - why does it seem so impossible to remain civilised online? If you were having this conversation in the pub, it would never get like this.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> It's nice to know I mean so much to you.


Athos you are mostly bearable, but god help urban75 if you ever had any editorial input into moderating, especially over a forum about a place you have never even been to!  

Maybe when you are old enough to get into the clubs round here you might turn up and get a clue! I think a daily travelcard from around your way is only £10 return.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I think it's disingenouus of you to imply that people's 'issues' with Hatboy are fuelled by homophobia.  It occurs to me that the only 'undercurrent' here is the growing consensus that, as decent a bloke (and poster) as Hatboy may be, he's not a very good moderator.


Really? Whose consensus? 
All I see here is that some individual posters have suddenly started laying into him. And not ONE of them have seen fit to make their accusations specific, or reasonable, or fact-based (y'know, _back them up_). As a poster he has a right to speak his mind and chip in his ten penn'orth and that right is not affected by his being a moderator.
A mods job here is the same as a ref's job in  footie-to keep order and to keep the play flowing. by those lights HB succeeeds 90%-95% of the time. good enuff to me, loike


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Athos you are being disingenuous in continuing to try to stick in the knife and stir things when you are on record as having criticised the Editors policy on not allowing vicious little neo-fascist racist twats on here (you want them allowed on here), and now you butt into the Brixton forum despite not living in Brixton, or even in London, and having no sympathy with what the Brixton Forum is about in the first place. Since you obviously don't care about Brixton or the Brixton forum why else would you try and provoke and persue one of the moderators? Now coming on with your sickly "he's a nice guy" crap just shows you up as the insincere little creep you are. Whatever the pros and cons of hatboy's moderating style I'm only persuaded to defend him when I hear your poisonous little stabs that you can't hold back from making for no reason whatsoever, and at an entirely innappropriate time. Making further personal insultts and trying to trollishly wind someone up when they are obviously upset and saying they are going to leave is the behaviour of a spiteful child and totally fuckwitted troublemaker.
> 
> Not having *yourself* asked for this thread to be binned please desist from posting anything further on it.



I'm not sticking the knife in, and I've tried to refrain from making insulting comments about Hatboy (which seems to be more than you're able to do, with regard to me  ).  I was criticizing his moderating, that's all.  I think I am entitled to my opinion on that, not least of all because, despite what you ady, I do care about Brixton (and the Brixton forum).  I'm not being disingenouus or insincere, people tell me he's a nice enough bloke, and I don't doubt it, I just resent his moderating style.  I haven't suggested he leave, merely that he stop moderating.

TeeJay, this is the third or fourth thread on which you've raised the discussion you and I had on the 'correct limits to free speech' thread in the philosophy forum.  You seem to be intent upon giving a distorted version of what I was saying (and totally out of context) in an effort to imply that I'm a racist/fascist, whereas you know that's not true.  If you were interested in discussing that topic, you should have done so on that thread, instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and storming off.


----------



## nosos (Apr 1, 2004)

Oi! Teejay, you forgot to call him a homophobe as well!  

Seriously, mate, sort it out.. you're way to cuddly to carry off this intellectual vendetta shit.

Oh and Hatboy should most definately stay.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 1, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> He's one of the most honest and up-front people around. Which is exactly what's needed on this (quite unique) forum.
> Hatboy, as a person who'll say nothing behind your back he won't say to your face, and always his own man, is the perfect moderator for this forum.
> 
> He's eccentric, passionate, big-hearted, very fair and very honest.



This can't be emphasised enough - Hatboy's honesty and straightforwardness - he's not a backstabber, a hypocrite or a dissembler, unlike many of the rest of us.


----------



## fanta (Apr 1, 2004)

If Hatboy was going to leave then he would just leave without posting this thread.

He ain't going nowhere!*

*I think.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 1, 2004)

Please could someone save this thread (and the other one: here ontop a hard drive? I'm in the library so can't do it.

There's been far too much heat generated for this to be simply about PK's alleged racism and complaints about Hatboy's moderating style.

There's some sub-text I'm not getting. There's a smokescreen obscuring something else. Otherwise, why all the heat? But it's been done cleverly so the real meaning is burried. I'd like to know what it is.

If I still had students I'd set one on to deconstructing the text and teasing out the truth.

Intostella mentioned possible homophobia. Maybe that's it.

It's clearly far more than PK's ranting or Hatboy's pawky sense of humour. Where's Dr Jazz when you need him?


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> You seem to be intent upon giving a distorted version of what I was saying (and totally out of context) in an effort to imply that I'm a racist/fascist, whereas you know that's not true.


You are an apologist for racists and fascists who want to come and troll urban75. You'd love to see hatboy go probably for this exact same reason, hence why this is entirely relevant to this thread. You have never even been to Brixton, let alone 'care' about it. Go figure.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 1, 2004)

copy saved ak will mail it to ya if you pm me an addy or whatever you choose to do wiv it!!!!


----------



## nosos (Apr 1, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Intostella mentioned possible homophobia. Maybe that's it.



You have to be joking.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 1, 2004)

I don't think anything is going on apart from a bit of mean-spirited disagreement.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

nos said:
			
		

> Oi! Teejay, you forgot to call him a homophobe as well!


I didn't forget. Athos isn't on record as making homophobic statements, as far as I know.


----------



## davey (Apr 1, 2004)

My apologies if someone has already said this in another particularly nasty thread on this forum, but the Brixton forum is fundamentally different and needs a different kind of moderator and has different kinds of tensions. IMHO

1. Long-term residents of Brixton (and even short-term residents, like myself) get heartily fed up by being told by people who don't know Brixton coming here with their preconceptions or even telling them what Brixton is like. It's the same on this forum - people being all too ready to pontificate on Brixton life (and I've done this myself) are *quite rightly pulled up on it by people who know more than them* about the area. Good. Try listening to them and their experiences in stead of tying yourselves up in knots in order to win an argument.

2. Personally I find Hatboy's comment about Brixton being a paler imitation of itself absolutely true and quite a clever play on words. I find PKs stereotype of some pubs here borderline racist.

3. Brixton is a small place and mods have to be exceptionally careful about identifying people and places particularly as Hatboy is a very visible and distinctive member of the community - I've never been introduced to him but I know what he looks like, no wonder he's careful!

4. HB has worked hard to promote this forum, tried to make it more representative of Brixton and is one of an important handful of posters who act as a valuable conduit of information for other readers and posters.

5. Whatever you think about HB's moderating, the character assassination he's been subjected to on this thread is unacceptable and childish.

6. Is it just me or has pk been building up to this for a while?

please stay around Hatboy and thanks for your efforts so far.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Davey -- you've completely cracked it. Very well put. Agree 110%.


----------



## rennie (Apr 1, 2004)

Hatboy, don't leave!!!!


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You are an apologist for racists and fascists who want to come and troll urban75. You'd love to see hatboy go probably for this exact same reason, hence why this is entirely relevant to this thread. You have never even been to Brixton, let alone 'care' about it. Go figure.



By that token, anyone who argues for free speech is an apologist for everyone else who expresses unpleasant views.  Come on TeeJay, you know that's nonsense.

What exactly are you saying is my motive for criticising Hatboy's moderating?  Are you saying it's racism or fascism?!     If you are, then I hope you are going to back that up, or apologise.  I give stick, and I can take it, but to accuse me of that is going too far.

By the way, I wouldn't 'love to see Hatboy go' and I do care about Brixton, and most certainly have been there, many times.  Where did you get the contrary idea?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

hatboy, don't go! 

yr doing the right things, and the vile attitudes displayed by the posters slagging you off proves this. they're not fit to launder yr socks. 

stay!


----------



## fanta (Apr 1, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Intostella mentioned possible homophobia. Maybe that's it.



Yes, that must be it! Obviously! Certainly not resentment at any perceived elitist clique! No! That could never be an issue could it?

_There's some sub-text I'm not getting._

Rubbish! There is no sub-text at all. You know what it is - you just don't like it perhaps?

You'll have to try harder than _that_ pal! You're fooling nobody!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

You'll have to try harder than _that_ pal! You're fooling nobody!


----------



## fanta (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> You'll have to try harder than _that_ pal! You're fooling nobody!



Thanks! Glad we agree!


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> What exactly are you saying is my motive for criticising Hatboy's moderating?  Are you saying it's racism or fascism?!     If you are, then I hope you are going to back that up, or apologise.  I give stick, and I can take it, but to accuse me of that is going too far.


Well go and complain to a moderator then!


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 1, 2004)

managed to get the extreme carp out of there quickly enough teejay.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well go and complain to a moderator then!



Very good.   

Seriously, though, I think that implying what you did was dishonest and unfair.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Thanks! Glad we agree!


i think not. i feel yr being a tawdry troll, and suspect this thread would be much better without the dubious pleasure of yr thoughts.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Fuzzy said:
			
		

> managed to get the extreme carp out of there quickly enough teejay.


What - the 'killer koi'?


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Very good.
> 
> Seriously, though, I think that implying what you did was dishonest and unfair.


Well its nice to see you have suddenly grown a conscience and invented basic rules about the limits to free speech. Funny how this has suddenly happened when I have started telling the truth about you. You live out in Surrey don't you? Been to the Brixton Academy a few times have we? Yes its at the end of the Victoria, line don't you know?


----------



## fanta (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i think not. i feel yr being a tawdry troll, and suspect this thread would be much better without the dubious pleasure of yr thoughts.



Ah yes 'troll' that must be it. Not conservative? Not racist? Not homophobic?

Why is that when certain posters are confronted with a view they do not agree with they automatically dismiss it as being one of the above or suggest that the other poster doesn't post?

Answer: Because that is the best they can do!

How embarrassingly pathetic!


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 1, 2004)

so not only has hatboy been upset it now appears that a whole host of other posters are going to start getting embroiled in a slanging match. should this be nipped in the bud now or left to run and run, causing god knows what damage on the way.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well its nice to see you have suddenly grown a conscience and invented basic rules about the limits to free speech. Funny how this has suddenly happened when I have started telling the truth about you. You live out in Surrey don't you? Been to the Brixton Academy a few times have we?



I haven't changed my position on free speech.  I haven't even reported your post, let alone tried to silence you.  All I was doing was explaining that I found the post out of order.  I guess I was appealing to your sense of decency; I'm sure you know it's wrong to accuse somone of being a racist/fascist and then neither back it up (which, of course, you can't) or withdraw it and apologise.  I know you don't like me, but to sink to that is pathetic.

And yes, I live in surrey, and I have been to the Academy a few times, but that's not the limit of my interest in Brixton.  What's your point?  Should that preclude me from posting on the Brixton forum, or commenting on the way it is moderated?


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I found the post out of order.


Out of whose "order"? You think you are more 'decent' than me? You don't believe in moderation but you demand I change what I have said about you, even though it is true?

"to accuse somone of being a racist/fascist"

I am saying that you are an apologist for racist and fascist scum who want to come and post on urban75 and you'd like to see the moderating policy on urban75 changed. Calling for hatboy to stop moderating the brixton forum is just more of the same.

Now you're crying about someone telling the truth about you and hurrumphfing about 'common decency'. Well go and tell hatboy about it, or if you don't believe in moderators then just live with it. 

You don't want people talking teling the truth about you then maybe you need to quit rubbishing other people and maybe you could also sit down and make up your mind about the value of moderation rather than saying it only exists to protect your own precious feelings?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 1, 2004)

1 I have just taken the unprecedented and illiberal step of *putting Athos on my ignore list.*   Perhaps other people should as well!

2 Hatboy - please stay.   To reinforce my PM of a few days ago, thank you again for carrying out a thankless task.

Sadly, IMHO this forum has had some problems of apparent cliquiness of tone. [*see below for my take, but let's not derail this thread further by ritual denunciation of it!!!]   That may well be inevitable in a forum with a narrow geographical focus, and some longer-established members coming from shared backgrounds.   However, I don't think that responsibility for this perception can be attributed to your (usually admirable, mostly good-humoured, sometimes exasperating) efforts to moderate us all. 

*   For what it's worth, my main gripe with several regular posters is their apparent inability to recognise that "conservatism" does not just come from a right-wing perspective. (I've seen too many nostalgist comments relating to some idealised socialist/communitarian Lambeth.   I don't believe ever existed for the poorest and most deprived in this borough, and sadly it certainly isn't a sustainable model for the future in globalised Nu-Labour Britain.   At times, it has reminded me of nothing so much as my hosts in East Berlin reminiscing about the glories of the DDR a few years after the fall of the wall)


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Out of whose "order"? You think you are more 'decent' than me? You don't believe in moderation but you demand I change what I have said about you, even though it is true?
> 
> "to accuse somone of being a racist/fascist"
> 
> ...



If that is what you're saying, then it's a fair enough comment on your part.  I didn't realise that that was what you meant: I thought you were saying that I was having a pop at Hatboy because I'm a racist or fascist.  I'm sorry I got the wrong end of the stick.  And I'm pleased that you don't think that of me.

I'm not saying that you're more or less decent than me, and I'm not necessarily suggesting a certain order ought to apply.  I wasn't 'demanding' anything of you.

As you know, I'm in favour of minimal moderation.  However, I appreciate that it's not my decision, and that moderation will, of course, continue.  My criticism of Hatboy wasn't driven by a desire to stop all moderation.  If that was the case, I'd be more critical of all the moderators.  As it happens, I singled out Hatboy because I think that he's done a particularly poor job, especially recently.

You call me an apologist for racists and fascists.  Do you accept that anyone who believes in free speech is such an apologist, as it would mean giving a platform to those people?  Also, do you accept that some good can come from engaging some racists and fascists in debate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> *For what it's worth, my main gripe with several regular posters is their apparent inability to recognise that "conservatism" does not just come from a right-wing perspective. (I've seen too many nostalgist comments relating to some idealised socialist/communitarian Lambeth.   I don't believe ever existed for the poorest and most deprived in this borough, and sadly it certainly isn't a sustainable model for the future in globalised Nu-Labour Britain.   At times, it has reminded me of nothing so much as my hosts in East Berlin reminiscing about the glories of the DDR a few years after the fall of the wall)


have you ever come across that jello biafra song, something along the lines of "nostalgia for an age that never existed"? 'tis a useful phrase to describe the sort of thing you note.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 1, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> 1 I have just taken the unprecedented and illiberal step of *putting Athos on my ignore list.*   Perhaps other people should as well!


LR: Athos has just this moment insulted you in the most grossly personal terms. Surely you're going to respond? John Stewart Mill would have. Bugger _On Tolerance_. Put the boot in mate!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)




----------



## Anna Key (Apr 1, 2004)

Spoil sport.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> useful phrase to describe the sort of thing you note.


That comment was definitely not vetted by the Gang of Four. It's the re-education camp for you, my boy.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That comment was definitely not vetted by the Gang of Four. It's the re-education camp for you, my boy.




fucking pinkos


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That comment was definitely not vetted by the Gang of Four. It's the re-education camp for you, my boy.


sounds fun!


----------



## reubeness (Apr 1, 2004)

Ises people,

Firstly, Hatboy, you welcomed me on to the forum a few months ago, I know from your spirit that you are a man with a lot of heart and that you see clearly the real issues confronting Brixton and its population. 
So, I can overs how 'angry young man' some posters comments must make you - truth is HB some people just don't get it and never will. 
Some people just like to bait and others instigate. It's not a takeover, nor could it ever be - the majority are 'eyes wide open'. 
No one should wonder that the forum is mostly of European extraction nor that a percentage (even of those who live here) be(lie)ve what they read in the tabloids or what the resident BNP activist tells them.
Truth is HB there's a lot of work to do but this thread (for me at least) isn't doing it!


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> You call me an apologist for racists and fascists.  Do you accept that anyone who believes in free speech is such an apologist, as it would mean giving a platform to those people?  Also, do you accept that some good can come from engaging some racists and fascists in debate?


You are an apologist for racists and fascists who want to post on urban75. You believe in the right of bnp members to be able to post on urban75 and you argue that urban75 would be a better place if it allowed them to post their racist shit here.    

We are talking specifically about* anyone who believes in this kind of free speech on urban75 - and yes they are such an apologist, as it would mean giving a platform to those people. Also, we are talking specifically* about any good coming from engaging some racists and fascists in debate on these forums. I believe that allowing people to come on here and freely post racist, sexist, homophobic, sectarian, hate language and similar stuff would not only not lead to 'good' but would actually degrade the whole standard of debate and discussion, would be abusive and degrading towards* a lot of users and a lot of people generally, and would not actually lead to postive debate or anything else.

Now, are you really trying to say that you ideals and ideas about moderation are irrelevant to your rubbishing of Hatboy's moderation style. A bit hard to believe surely?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

reubeness said:
			
		

> Ises people,
> 
> Firstly, Hatboy, you welcomed me on to the forum a few months ago, I know from your spirit that you are a man with a lot of heart and that you see clearly the real issues confronting Brixton and its population.
> So, I can overs how 'angry young man' some posters comments must make you - truth is HB some people just don't get it and never will.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> Ah yes 'troll' that must be it. Not conservative? Not racist? Not homophobic?
> 
> Why is that when certain posters are confronted with a view they do not agree with they automatically dismiss it as being one of the above or suggest that the other poster doesn't post?
> 
> ...


do you want me to refer to yr bigoted tendencies in every post? witling.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> witling.


 That's one of the activities at re-education camp. Glad you're getting  prepared.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

that's whittling. that's different.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 1, 2004)

Teejay

I don't agree with Athos that people should be allowed a platform here to spout racist shite.

BUT - such a view is not being an "apologist for racists".

Defending free speech is not the same as defending the views that free speech allows.

Or has Athos actually defended any racist views?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> that's whittling. that's different.


 Sorry, that should have said 'wilting'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)




----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You are an apologist for racists and fascists who want to post on urban75. You believe in the right of bnp members to be able to post on urban75 and you argue that urban75 would be a better place if it allowed them to post their racist shit here.
> 
> We are talking specifically abouy anyone who believes in this kind of free speech on urban75 - and yes they are such an apologist, as it would mean giving a platform to those people. Also, we are talking speficially about any good coming from engaging some racists and fascists in debate on these forums. I believe that allowing people to come on here and freely post racist, sexist, homophobic, sectarian, hate language and similar stuff would not only not lead to 'good' but would actually degrade the whole standard of debate and discussion, would be abusive and degrading towrds a lot of users and a lot of people generally, and would not actually lead to postive debate or anything else.
> 
> Now, are you really trying to say that you ideals and ideas about moderation are irrelevant to your rubbishing of Hatboy's moderation style. A bit hard to believe surely?



TeeJay, I think you're giving a slightly skewed account of the points I was trying to make.  I don't know whether you are doing so deliberately, or whether you didn't understand what I was saying.  For instance, you seem to have forgotton that I conceded that some moderation would be required, to stop personal abuse.

I don't know if this spat between us is of interest to anyone else, but, in case it is, I suppose it would help if a link to that thread could be posted up.  I don't know how to.  Would you put it up, please?

My central point was that although I'd rather not see racists here, that some good can come from challanging some of them, and that having to endure some of them might be a reasonable price to pay for that (not that they have a right to post).  I think that there would be some wider good, and that, in some ways, U75 could be better if it took these people to task rather than banning them.

I don't think that that makes me an apologist for racists and fascists, but, if it does, that highly pejorative label is made virtually meaningless by your concession that anyone who believes in free speech could be labelled the same.


----------



## Relahni (Apr 1, 2004)

This whole thing has pissed me off a bit.  I don't usually come into the Brixton forums as I'm not from the area and haven't got much interest in it.  I used to live on Hubert Grove as a student, before it became trendy.

Anyway, on one occasion when I was in the Brixton forum,  HB made some comment about a few girls in a photo.  I thought it was fucking hilarious but a few people started giving him loads and loads of shit for it.  I didn't really understand it.

HB is a decent bloke imo, he invited my girlfriend and me into his house, we had a good laugh and a good conversation.  It was a time when I was pretty new to Urban and didn't know many people.   He's a decent sort and I think people are being well unfair to HB imo.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 1, 2004)

well said that man! (Relahni)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

what jezza said!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> well said that man! (Relahni)


 Seconded.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

Snorkelboy said:
			
		

> Teejay
> 
> I don't agree with Athos that people should be allowed a platform here to spout racist shite.
> 
> ...



Of course I haven't.

The truth is that TeeJay and I had a protracted debate which essentially came down to the relative merits of a free speech vs the merits of a 'no platform' policy.  He favoured the former, and I the latter (despite having no time for racists or their views).

Unfortunately, we both became quite heated and eventually TeeJay refused to discuss it.  I'd obviously upset him, and, consequently, on a few occasions since, he's bought it up on other threads, where he's given a distorted account of what I was trying to say, and without providing an explanation of the context.

I get the impression that he took a dislike to me because he 'lost' the argument (by going off in a huff) and, as such, has taken every opportunity to have a sly dig at me, by misleadingly implying that I'm a racist or fascist.  He knows I'm not, and I'm sure he'd never come right out and say it, because he'd make himself look even more silly.

I'm bored of him now, and would put him on ignore if I wasn't so scared that he'd just badmouth me without me having a chance to put my side accross.  I shall try not to rise to it, where possible, though.


----------



## Domski (Apr 1, 2004)

Seconded. 
what jezza said!
well said that man! (Relahni)
Well said. 

Woohoo - the backslapping has begun! Hatboy will _obviously_ stay (that was never in doubt), this thread has served it's purpose and probably made him feel loved again. Not a bad thing - and judging on past performance absolutely nothing will change, which after all, is what it's all about innit. 

Despite all the unpleasantness, and out of context remarks I'm sure something useful has come out of this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

-> athos


----------



## flimsier (Apr 1, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> :d  :d  :d  :d



What the fuck are you doing with your tongue?


----------



## flimsier (Apr 1, 2004)

and your edit was too late!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you doing with your tongue?


arsy computer not doing  but :d


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> Seconded.
> what jezza said!
> well said that man! (Relahni)
> Well said.
> ...


 Yes, if you attack people, they will forget their minor differences and pull together. So you have arguably made the Brixton boards a better place.  I bet that was what you were trying to do all along, wasn't it? You felt that HB wasn't getting the bigging up he deserves and so you started this clever ruse.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 1, 2004)

flimsier said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you doing with your tongue?


     .........


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> he's given a distorted account of what I was trying to say, and without providing an explanation of the context.


You think the moderators shouldn't stop racist shit being posted here. You think that allowing it would add something positive to urban75. I feel this is entirely relevant to your views about what makes good moderation, something you feel justified in lecturing hatboy about. I'll leave everyone to make up their own minds about this. There isn't much more to it really. Athos - you demanded a vote on hatboy and got one. How do you fancy someone starting one about you?


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think the moderators shouldn't stop racist shit being posted here. You think that allowing it would add something positive to urban75. I feel this is entirely relevant to your views about what makes good moderation, something you justified in lecturing hatboy about.
> 
> I'll leave everyone to make up their own minds about this.



Nice try!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 1, 2004)

it's a pity what happened to milady didn't happen to athos.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 1, 2004)

Don't go HB!

I don't think that anyone would deny that Hatboy cares passionately about the area, nor that he very occasionally oversteps the mark as a result. He'd be the first to admit that mistake, and Mike's the first to tell him when crosses the line.

And on the other hand, this forum's got a genuinely unique moderator - a hugely knowledgeable host to the area who quick to help wherever he can. A bit of snappiness is a small price to pay for someone who obviously cares deeply about the area.

What's unacceptable to me is that some posters have deliberately set out to goad Hatboy on recent threads. Whilst others have been all too happy to be snide and mutter destabilising criticism at every turn. Way to go - you've pressed the right buttons and caused the reaction you're after...


----------



## Domski (Apr 1, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Yes, if you attack people, they will forget their minor differences and pull together. So you have arguably made the Brixton boards a better place.  I bet that was what you were trying to do all along, wasn't it? You felt that HB wasn't getting the bigging up he deserves and so you started this clever ruse.



I couldn't have done it without you


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 1, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> You think the moderators shouldn't stop racist shit being posted here. You think that allowing it would add something positive to urban75. I feel this is entirely relevant to your views about what makes good moderation, something you justified in lecturing hatboy about.
> 
> I'll leave everyone to make up their own minds about this.




I have, and I think you should stop calling him an apologist for racists - because he isn't.

Though I still don't agree with him.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 1, 2004)

Snorkelboy said:
			
		

> I think you should stop calling him an apologist for racists - because he isn't.






			
				Athos said:
			
		

> If that is what you're saying, then it's a fair enough comment on your part.  I didn't realise that that was what you meant: I thought you were saying that I was having a pop at Hatboy because I'm a racist or fascist.  I'm sorry I got the wrong end of the stick.  And I'm pleased that you don't think that of me.


Fair comment or not? A case for hatboy perhaps? 

Anyway, I think I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 1, 2004)

I haven't read the thead that sparked all this off, and not living in brixton I don't read this forum very often.  But hatboy, as far as I'm concerned you're an integral part of u75, I remember being impressed by your posts when I started posting, and although I don't always agree with your views I've always liked your honesty and sincerity.  This place would be poorer without you.


----------



## brixtonvilla (Apr 1, 2004)

*Sorry to interrupt TJ & Athos' pissing contest, but...*

...trying to put this thread slightly back on track. Hatboy winds me up & pisses me off no end, but I don't think he should go. However, I just don't think he should be a moderator, for the simple reason that he's not moderate in his opinions or how he expresses them. HB is too close to Brixton issues to be able to be impartial, and lets his own opinions colour how he treats people who think differently. At present, his moderating seems to cause more problems than it solves, so I reckon it's time to take a back seat.


----------



## Fidel (Apr 1, 2004)

Hatboys ok, dont always agree with him and he is a bit touchy feely for his own good at times. Though it would take a strong ego to brush off some of the critisim he has attracted recently - though this crictisim was in response to thread he started which people disagreed with..Man there are too many nasty posts on these boards to get pissed off at PK. Just to look at a few of the posters on this thread; Pickmans - makes exceedlingly good posts - model makes nasty posts too (shock horror), Intostella is a foul mouthed bag, though comically agressive. TJ is too polite and has taken the technique of boring readers to death. 

All in all I think Hatboy should stay if he wants but he has to be able to take and give critisim. Looking at recent threads, his view  that the Greenleaf is a cause to rally round to protest the drug laws. Others disagreed thats the nature of the net. It seems to have spiralled with the brixon blanding out thread. Net result loads of shit his way, though no more than any other active poster gets though I  think.

On the other hand summer is coming and who the fuck wants to moderate us lot when you could be out and about!

Editd to remove dont from ´I dont think´


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Fucks sake....

I don't want Hatboy to go anywhere - things wouldn't be the same without him around these virtual parts.
And he fucking knows that.

But he has to learn to take it if he likes to dish it.

And he does, and so do I.

Leave the racism/homophobia accusations towards me out of this though eh?

It's a fucking load of bollocks, and if you don't truly see that, then maybe you shouldn't be moderating after all, Hatboy.

Now pull yourself together, your community needs you.

Oh and I'm quick to apologise if I've offended but I don't apologise for the post HB quoted - it needed saying and if I don't say it who will?

I only speak for myself here, and sometimes it's like chucking dead fish at sealions but what the fuck... the way certain sections of Brixton society - namely the Cafe Cairo regulars - get slagged off just gets on my tits, so deal with it and be not so bitchy next time.

And don't fucking edit my posts anymore, because that gets on my tits too.

Apart from that - sorry if this has caused you unneccesary distress HB, I guess I expected a thicker skin, and I only see this as a virtual row, not something that has to make real life unpleasant.

I have to go kill some Albanian cunts now, so take care y'all!

pk


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Just one more thing...



> "After PK's latest outburst and the general more and more mainstream atmosphere here I'm pretty fed up.
> 
> Do I want to be associated with a website that finds this bigotry acceptable?"



I think it is the "mainstream atmosphere" that pisses you off more than any percieved sense of "bigotry" you have got from me, HB.

Am I responsible for making this forum, or even Brixton itself, any more "mainstream" than is inevitable?

In fact I'm rather more miffed at the implication that I am mainstream than the laughable implications of bigotry on my part.

But I'll reiterate - I don't want Hatboy to go, I just want him to be more accommodating and diversify his moderating style to allow for the (Claphamites/Tallulahs/yuppies/add spiteful intolerant pidgeonholed stereotype here) who are a part of Brixton life whether you like it or not.

Even if they are white. It's 2004 for fucks sake.


----------



## davey (Apr 2, 2004)

Fidel said:
			
		

> Intostella is a foul mouthed bag



..some of IntoStella's post piss me off and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. This comment is unacceptable though.

IntoStella I think you should get yourself back to Switzerland and complete your time at finishing school - you're obviously not displaying the qualities we expect of the fairer sex <slaps wrist>


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 2, 2004)

davey said:
			
		

> IntoStella I think you should get yourself back to Switzerland and complete your time at finishing school - you're obviously not displaying the qualities we expect of the fairer sex <slaps wrist>


 Exactly. Women aren't allowed to swear. It's awfully _unfeminine_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

davey said:
			
		

> <slaps wrist>


sounds like "one off the..." and a bit of paper (or electronic) inspiration is as near as you get to the "fairer sex".

sad to see misogyny alive and well and living on urban.


----------



## Baub (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> ....allow for the (Claphamites/Tallulahs/yuppies/*add spiteful intolerant pidgeonholed stereotype here*) who are a part of Brixton life whether you like it or not.




What pk said!

'low it man!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Oh and I'm quick to apologise if I've offended but...


as they say in the employment service, everything before but is bollox.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

Fidel said:
			
		

> Pickmans - makes exceedlingly good posts - model makes nasty posts too (shock horror


are you saying i'm some sort of jekyll'n'hyde character?


----------



## davey (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> sounds like "one off the..." and a bit of paper (or electronic) inspiration is as near as you get to the "fairer sex".
> 
> sad to see misogyny alive and well and living on urban.



If that was a dig at me, then perhaps you should have appreciated the irony, as IS seems to have done. I was having a go at an insult that seemed to imply that women should behave in a way deemed by men to be "ladylike".

If I've misunderstood your post, then my apologies.

And for your information, when I wank I'm more likely to be thinking of Craig Doyle than Judith Chalmers.

edited to replace 'then' with 'than' - I'm not that sick!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> are you saying i'm some sort of jekyll'n'hyde character?


That would explain the hairy palms.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

davey - craig doyle or judith chalmers? that's not a choice, that's a threat!


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> as they say in the employment service, everything before but is bollox.



Up yours cunt - you're not helping matters are you?


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Up yours cunt - you're not helping matters are you?



does he ever?


----------



## miss minnie (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> as they say in the employment service, everything before but is bollox.


 exactly what i've always thought when hatboy made his apologies.

remember his apology to intostella when he called her 'ample arsed' and she threatened to leave urban?  that apology was full of 'buts'!  

don't remember pickman's posting a witty retort then...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Up yours cunt - you're not helping matters are you?


if "to help matters" you have to be like pk - a vicious racist, misogynist bigot i'd expect to be more at home in the wnp than on u75 - then no, i'm not.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 2, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> exactly what i've always thought when hatboy made his apologies.
> 
> remember his apology to intostella when he called her 'ample arsed' and she threatened to leave urban?  that apology was full of 'buts'!


 I admit my position on this is inevitably biased but I don't think bringing that unhappy incident up again is helpful to anyone.  I  object to you bringing up something that hurt me, and that was deleted,  in order to back up your argument. 

I also think that any grievances you have against hatboy you should discuss in the moderators' forum or phone/go to see/email him rather than airing dirty laundry in public. 





> don't remember pickman's posting a witty retort then...


 Beg pardon?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 2, 2004)

I've stayed outa this thread so far because - as someone who is a friend to both PK and hatboy - it has made me feel profoundly uncomfortable, and I was acutely aware of the dangers of making a tense situation worse.
Ok, some reflections. We are none of us perfect. HB would be the first to admit he occasionally overreacts, even personalises issues unnecessarily - in short, he can be a stroppy bugger. GOOD. This forum needs that, mayhap. HB is also - overwhelmingly - the best bod for the job, on the two grounds that a)only Mrs Magpie knows more about Brixton than him (and she knows more about everything than everyone, unless the discussion concerns Sports) and b) he genuinely gives a damn - massively so - about Brixton and Brixtonians. Anyone who DOESN'T think your heart and principles are both spot on, Hatboy, is either a fool, or lying, or both
PK: I am so relieved, and so thankful for your posts #131 & #132 above, because I really do think Hatboy had a point concerning the post that he C&Ped to start this thread. I know you are in no way a racist or a bigot (can't think of a less likely candidate, tbh) but it came across as intolerant and xenophobic.It also contained a slating of hatboy that, IMHO, was based on a complete mis-grasping of where he was coming from (and thre worst of this being that I know YOUR heart is invariably in the fright place too!)
It's true, however, that any bad feeling between you & HB is part-and-parcel of th'boards, and of life. this ain't a love-in club, fortunately-you're just two radically different people.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 2, 2004)

brixtonvilla said:
			
		

> ...trying to put this thread slightly back on track. Hatboy winds me up & pisses me off no end, but I don't think he should go. However, I just don't think he should be a moderator, for the simple reason that he's not moderate in his opinions or how he expresses them. HB is too close to Brixton issues to be able to be impartial, and lets his own opinions colour how he treats people who think differently.


HUH? being a 'moderator' has got bugger all to do with having 'moderate' opinions, yer wally! it's a term the web nicked from the Wee Frees/Church of Scotland. Whoops!   
And surely the whole point is that this forum _needs_ someone who knows their onions on Brixton, and I think it is - to all intents and purposes - impossible to be truly impartial _and_ well informed on core issues.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> In fact I'm rather more miffed at the implication that I am mainstream than the laughable implications of bigotry on my part.




i think we're getting to the crux of this matter now.  Nobody on this forum likes to think of themselves as conservative and that's why the whole thing kicked off in the way it did on the previous thread about the blanding out of Brixton.  

Hatboy -- have you had a chance to consider your position yet?  We sure would like to hear from you.  

And for the record, I don't want you to leave.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 2, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> HB is also - overwhelmingly - the best bod for the job, on the two grounds that a)only Mrs Magpie knows more about Brixton than him (and she knows more about everything than everyone, unless the discussion concerns Sports) and b) he genuinely gives a damn - massively so - about Brixton and Brixtonians. Anyone who DOESN'T think your heart and principles are both spot on, Hatboy, is either a fool, or lying, or both



Hatboy, don't go!!    

Well said RJ.  For what my suburban (now a.k.a. "Hotbed of terrorism") views are worth I'll just make the following quick points:

1. Hatboy is trying to achieve the impossble.  I defy anyone to take a totally objective moderator's view when they have such passionate beliefs about the subject matter.  IMHO he does a pretty good job most of the time and readily accepts when he's got carried away.  Is there no scope for leaving moderation of particular threads in which Hatboy has particularly strong opinions to another moderator?

2. This is a privately owned / run message board.  Users are entitled to make their views on how it should be run known but ultimately it is for the editor and those he decides to appoint to set and enforce the rules.  If we don;t like it we can always set our own one up.

3. It is important to consider people's perception:  e.g. (from my old area) if you are a copper and everyone believes that prisoners get beaten up in the cells, then that is the perception you have to deal with, regardless of the fact that you know it is not true.  If people perceive the moderator to be doing something wrong then that perception must be addressed by the moderator.

4. What is racist?  There is a continuum, ranging from illegal racist abuse / inflammatory language at one end of the scale, through potentially offensive views, through to ignorant stereotyping and ending in unthinking flippancy.  Where should the line be drawn?  What should be edited out / posters banned?  What should simply be challenged / argued against by other posters?  I personally would say that the initial comments by pk (e.g. 99% of crack trade is Jamaican) fall below the line - argue against them - they're ignorant / unthinking but not illegal.  

Views are not changed by being banned, views are changed by reasoned / evidenced debate.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> 1 I have just taken the unprecedented and illiberal step of *putting Athos on my ignore list.*   Perhaps other people should as well!
> 
> 2 Hatboy - please stay.   To reinforce my PM of a few days ago, thank you again for carrying out a thankless task.
> 
> ...



   Having a "gripe" or political disagreement with several posters is a fair enough-and an important part of debate.To accuse them of being a clique that gives the Brixton forum a bad "tone"(and a "clique" is something Fanta complains about as well) is starting to annoy me.Have you not read my other posts on this subject on other threads?

   You say you dont want to derail this thread then you drop this in at the end of your post.A comment designed to derail a thread.

   Attacks on HBs moderating style get mixed in with other issues.This has happened I notice on the other thread covering these issues.

  Apologies for skipping a few pages to post this up.I must be irritated to do that.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 2, 2004)

I'm PMing Gramsci in response rather than derailing the thread!


----------



## Bond (Apr 2, 2004)

Hatboy will be taking a break from the boards, which I can't blame him for.

He's contributed so much to the Brixton community and put on so much into the Brixton forum. Fair enough not everyone shares his ideas and feelings when he posts on here. Am hoping he'll be back eventually.   running late, bugger!

As for Athos, who the fuck are you? Some nobody. Adios.


----------



## Athos (Apr 2, 2004)

Bond said:
			
		

> As for Athos, who the fuck are you? Some nobody. Adios.



Ooooh!  Look at you!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Fucks sake....
> 
> But he has to learn to take it if he likes to dish it.
> 
> ...



   I read Red Jezzas post which states he knows you and you are OK.However reading your posts I can only think two things:

  1)Your posts are a deliberate wind up to get people going.Ernesto does this-without the racist language.

  2)You actually mean what you say.As you dont use Smilies etc I cant tell when your joking-even if its in poor taste.

  Its not that easy to tell whether you are 1 or 2.Their are people around who will have racist or homophobic attitudes but deny them if confronted.The Ive got nothing against immigrants "but" type of argument.Bermard Manning reckons hes not racist then comes out with that crap IMO-another example.

  I think HB was upset as your original post did not get a reaction.I think thats because you were given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 2, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> What a racist idiot. If this sort of poster and his ill-informed, half-baked arguments are acceptable to Editor/Mike, they certainly are not to me.
> 
> Utterly clueless. Utterly simplistic. A complete mis-understanding of who I am and what I do. This black/white thing - see my previous post about "not just talking to one black bloke called Winston and thinking I know something".
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see PK's opinion as being racist. You apparently do.  You say that you don't like talking with people like this in real life. What were you expecting when you came to a public forum, and then became a moderator. Were you expecting to only come across  carbon copies of your own opinions?

If you think that pk is seriously out to lunch, then surely your job is to stay around and make sure that the other side is heard, as opposed to running away.


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Gramsci - you show me one miniscule piece of evidence supporting claims of racism on my behalf.

And perhaps you should learn some facts about the crack trade before you jump on my 99 percent comment.

On the whole - Jamaicans run the crack, Albanians run the whores, Russians run the money laundering.

What the fuck is racist about that statement?

I'm a realist not a racist, for fucks sake, and I'm not in the least bit concerned about accusations of bigotry.

Perhaps if a few home truths are accepted then constructive measures could be devised, inclusive of the communities concerned, rather than gasps of shock that someone could DARE criticise Brixton for it's fucking blatant problems.

And I know a fair few Jamaicans that would agree with that too.

After all, it's generally their sons and daughters being ripped apart by guns and crack, or don't you give a fuck about that?

Sometimes the squeals of politically correct indignance are more harmful to the communities you seek to protect with cowardly language and sidestepping of issues.

My problem with Hatboy is a simple one - we don't get on.

Don't read any more into it than that.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2004)

An interesting reaction-I wondered if you would come back.

  If you look at my post I did not bring up the 99% issue in my post.If you look at your post you end it by saying your going off to kill an "Albanian cunt".I take it thats a joke then?  

  As I said in my original post I was pointing out it was not clear from your posts whether you are being deliberatingly provocative or downright racist.

  If you cant see people might not be able to tell this from your posts then you should think again.

  Ive met plenty of people who use the fact that some gangsterism is done within immigrant communities to justify their racism.ie all Albanians are crooks etc.

  You complain that you are only be a "realist".I remember a documentary a while back I saw about the BNP where the head of the BNP was arguing that they were not racist anymore.It was only undercover taping when they were of gaurd that caught them being really openly racist.

  Racism these days is dressed up as being concerned about immigration etc.People dont come out with it openly or deny it if challenged.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 2, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> An interesting reaction-I wondered if you would come back.
> 
> If you look at my post I did not bring up the 99% issue in my post.If you look at your post you end it by saying your going off to kill an "Albanian cunt".I take it thats a joke then?
> 
> ...



Organized crime in my city is run by Chinese and Vietnamese gangs. There are also Indo Canadian gangs, and of the spate of recent shootings, most have involved people alleged to be connected with these gangs.

The Hell's Angels are also powerful. They are exclusively white, often Italian.

Between them, these ethic crime groups control heroin, marijuana, coke, crack.

Am I a racist also, for saying these things?


----------



## miss minnie (Apr 2, 2004)

i have received a pm that accuses me of wanting to take over the moderation of the brixton forum.  i have tried to reply but the poster appeared to have 'switched off' their pm facility.  

it had never occurred to me that anyone would perceive my honest criticisms, made as a brixton forum poster, to be part of some conspiracy, and it certainly isn't part of anna key's 'subtext' theory.

if anything, i would like to see mrs magpie take a more active role in the brixton forum moderation.  or perhaps a brixton outsider.  whatever, i would like to see hatboy stay but with a new, improved moderation style.

i was given the role of administrator and rights to moderation.  i did say at the time that i did not want a forum to moderate, but that i would help out when the regular mods weren't around.  i have only ever made one edit in the brixton forum, where someone gave the real name of a poster in a situation that was potentially libellous.  no other mods were online at the time and i stated the reason for the edit clearly.  i have never thought to interfere in something that so clearly belongs to hatboy.  

it is apparent that we are all passionate about brixton and this forum - which is exactly why we think it important enough to both support and criticise.  i hope that the criticisms help to forge a new moderation style and i sincerely hope the brixton forum becomes a better, more balanced place.  with hatboy.

ps.  i have not sent anyone any pm's through this whole thing.  i prefer to say what i have to say out in the open and find the readiness of some posters to make accusations via pm very distasteful.  i will, however, reply to the person who sent me the pm if they'll let me.


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 2, 2004)

that sounds like pretty bad form, miss minnie. sorry to hear that...


----------



## Athos (Apr 2, 2004)

Come on, then; name and shame the mystery PMer!


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 2, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Come on, then; name and shame the mystery PMer!




i'm not sure that's very fucking helpful. or necessary. do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm not sure that's very fucking helpful. or necessary. do you?


yeh, no need to stir things up more.


----------



## Athos (Apr 2, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm not sure that's very fucking helpful. or necessary. do you?



Maybe not, but quite interesting, don't you think?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Maybe not, but quite interesting, don't you think?


----------



## Dubversion (Apr 2, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Maybe not, but quite interesting, don't you think?



perhaps, perhaps not. but it's none of your business or mine. 

i know you're enjoying this particular shitstorm. i'm just finding it really depressing.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> i have received a pm that accuses me of wanting to take over the moderation of the brixton forum.  i have tried to reply but the poster appeared to have 'switched off' their pm facility.


For the record, I can categorically say that miss minnie has _never, ever _ mentioned anything about wanting to be a Brixton moderator to me so I can safely state that the 'mystery' PMer is talking total bollocks.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Gramsci - you show me one miniscule piece of evidence supporting claims of racism on my behalf.
> 
> And perhaps you should learn some facts about the crack trade before you jump on my 99 percent comment.
> 
> ...



   You make generalised statements but produce no evidence.Where does the 99% figure come from?

  Home truths.Right so the drugs trade is run by "Jamaicans" and that new bete noire East Europeans.What are you saying?That until certain "home truths" are accepted then nothing can be done?That the likes of me and HB are making the situation worse?The idea that "political correctness" is making the hard drugs situation worse makes no sense to me.

  I dont run this country.We have had 2 of the most hardnosed Home Secretarys-Straw and Bliunkett dealing with this issue.If you have a problem blame them-they have the power to do something about it-I dont.

  Your phrasing-you say for example that "Albanians run the whores".If a newspaper used this language it would be rightly criticised for giving the impression that all Albanians did this.

  Apologies to HB for not looking closely at pk posts before and taking them apart.


----------



## Domski (Apr 2, 2004)

*Brief reply to Gramsci*

I must say I do admire your restraint and I apologise if I haven't got back to you in person...

There have been a number of occasions I've badly wanted to write a long, detailed and well thought out answer but I couldn't face it to be honest and was worried that it would get buried under a barrage of insults about  my 'bigotry'  which appeared to be the vogue at the time.


----------



## Athos (Apr 2, 2004)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> but it's none of your business or mine.



Oh, I dunno: if there's a vacancy I might put my name forward.  I don't know Brixton that well, but I reckon I could do a good job moderating.


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if "to help matters" you have to be like pk - a vicious racist, misogynist bigot i'd expect to be more at home in the wnp than on u75 - then no, i'm not.



Hey Pickmans - you must have a low opinion of people's intelligence on this site if you expect them to believe this bollocks.

Ask yourself why everyone who knows me knows that this "racism" implication is unfounded horseshit.

Then ask yourself how much you want to stir this up further.

As for misogyny LOL!! - well, that just seals it for me.
Anyone actually agree with this cunt?

Show some proof or fuck off, Prickman, before you really begin to annoy me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Hey Pickmans - you must have a low opinion of people's intelligence on this site if you expect them to believe this bollocks.
> 
> Ask yourself why everyone who knows me knows that this "racism" implication is unfounded horseshit.
> 
> Then ask yourself how much you want to stir this up further.


yeh, _everyone_ who knows you.  

so the vicious misogynist bigot bit hits the spot. yr grubby views about foreigners make me think yr a racist, and i've scant intention of getting to know you after reading yr posts on a variety of subjects.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> it is apparent that we are all passionate about brixton and this forum - which is exactly why we think it important enough to both support and criticise.  i hope that the criticisms help to forge a new moderation style and i sincerely hope the brixton forum becomes a better, more balanced place.  with hatboy.



   The more I read the more I want HB to stay as moderator.The Brixton forum will be the worse if he goes.

   miss minnie your mixing up two issues:

  1.HB style of moderation.

  2)making brixton forum "a better,more balanced place".

   What do you mean by 2?Could be HBs fear of a blander more mainstream forum.If so Im with HB on this one.


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Gramsci - nowhere have I said ALL Albanians control whores, nor have I once said that ALL Jamaicans run the crack.

That would be fucking stupid.

This isn't a newspaper and I like to pretend at times that the average reader of my posts has at least twice the IQ of a fucking Sun reader.

And yes, of course the Albanian thing was a joke.

Unless you really believe I regularly kill Albanians on a Thursday night, of course.

Imagination is a wonderful thing, but I'm not the monster I'm painted up to be, no matter how much you seem to need me to be.

Rant away at me, I can handle it.


----------



## pk (Apr 2, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh, _everyone_ who knows you.
> 
> so the vicious misogynist bigot bit hits the spot. yr grubby views about foreigners make me think yr a racist, and i've scant intention of getting to know you after reading yr posts on a variety of subjects.



Yeah everyone who knows me.

Everyone.

Every single fucking person.

So your going to look a bit stupid repeating your "vicious misogynist bigot" mantra for too long, shit-biscuit.


----------



## miss minnie (Apr 2, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> The more I read the more I want HB to stay as moderator.The Brixton forum will be the worse if he goes.
> 
> miss minnie your mixing up two issues:
> 
> ...


i am talking purely about moderation.  sometimes the shouting and bullying that is allowed to go on leads to polarisation in the debate.  a thread can become a two-sided shouting match.  a little more judicious moderating might mean that more opinions get heard, more lurkers might post, imo.  recently the place has reminded me of the house of commons.

i don't see how you arrive at 'more balanced'='blander' - i get 'more opinions'='more interesting'.  i guess i just don't find shouting matches as interesting as some seem to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

shit-biscuit?

is that an insult?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 2, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Yeah everyone who knows me.
> 
> Everyone.
> 
> ...


well, recently there's been the bit about "sins of the mother, bitch", which is the one that sticks in my mind (& that isn't exactly pro-women). and the bit about having to have a job to have a fulfilling life - clearly people (mostly women) who choose to stay at home to bring up children don't have the sort of fulfilling life you so obviously do.

but i  don't fancy looking through 500 posts of fuckspuddery you can hardly be expected to recall.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 2, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> i am talking purely about moderation.  sometimes the shouting and bullying that is allowed to go on leads to polarisation in the debate.  a thread can become a two-sided shouting match.  a little more judicious moderating might mean that more opinions get heard, more lurkers might post, imo.  recently the place has reminded me of the house of commons.
> 
> i don't see how you arrive at 'more balanced'='blander' - i get 'more opinions'='more interesting'.  i guess i just don't find shouting matches as interesting as some seem to.




Surely the best moderation involves staying the hell out of the way, unless something outrageous is going on.

Thanks for providing a forum to air a grievance: a few days ago, you arbitrarily cut off debate and closed a thread about stay at home women getting paid to do household work. At that point there had been some of the usual bs with vimto, etc, but there were also valid arguments going on. I thought cutting the thread off was heavy handed and unnecessary. What point did it serve?

I offer this as an addidtion to an argument about what good moderating consists of. IMO, a moderator is not an editor.


----------



## newbie (Apr 2, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> 2)making brixton forum "a better,more balanced place".
> 
> What do you mean by 2?Could be HBs fear of a blander more mainstream forum.If so Im with HB on this one.



G, what do you mean by 'mainstream'?  

How representative of the shades of opinion of people living in Brixton do you think this forum is?


----------



## miss minnie (Apr 2, 2004)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Thanks for providing a forum to air a grievance: a few days ago, you arbitrarily cut off debate and closed a thread about stay at home women getting paid to do household work.


perhaps you should start a new thread about that topic, or about your grievances in general.  this is not the place to discuss it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 2, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> perhaps you should start a new thread about that topic, or about your grievances in general.  this is not the place to discuss it.



Not having 'grievances in general', I don't think this to be something requiring a whole thread. It was, however, germane to the issue of moderation being discussed here, imo.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 2, 2004)

I think that its a real shame this issue has become such a personal slanging match.

I think it was detective boy who made the excellent point that when such a negative perception becomes commonplace (and lets face it - there's been quite a lot of people expressing it - not just the ones who've been posting repeatedly) then it's important to address it (whether you think it's right or wrong).

I haven't seen much attempt to address it other than scornful denial.

I really hope no-one feels they need to leave because of this issue.

EDIT < to be clear I'm talking about all the issues that have been raised about the Brixton Forum rather than just HBs moderating style specifically>


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

Well I think it's fucking great this has all kicked off.

You've heard of the Brixton riots - well this is the virtual version.

Hatboy will hopefully return to your screens soon, in the meantime here is a response to Pickman's further bollocks...



> Originally Posted by pk
> Yeah everyone who knows me.
> 
> Everyone.
> ...



_well, recently there's been the bit about "sins of the mother, bitch", which is the one that sticks in my mind (& that isn't exactly pro-women). and the bit about having to have a job to have a fulfilling life - clearly people (mostly women) who choose to stay at home to bring up children don't have the sort of fulfilling life you so obviously do.

but i don't fancy looking through 500 posts of fuckspuddery you can hardly be expected to recall._
-----------------------------
Firstly Pickmans - I don't even fucking know you.

At least I can say I've known Hatboy for over 4 years.

Sins of the mother? - that was in direct response to the "sins of the father" comment made by DRA1002000 or whatever his name is, you don't think I'd waste a decent reply on that twat do you?

The bit about having to have a job to have a fulfilling life - of course raising kids is a job and I have been raising the baby whilst partner works fulltime so don't give me that "you're just a sexist" because it's horseshit, cowboy, and it again makes you look stupid, and much like someone who should just fuck off and stop stirring it up.

Why not read through as many posts of mine as you can find Pickmans - you clearly need to learn as much about this precious world we live in as you can. I can guide you but you have to make your own way.

Bom Shanka, man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## hendo (Apr 3, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Well I think it's fucking great this has all kicked off.
> 
> You've heard of the Brixton riots - well this is the virtual version.



Tosh. It's a series of unattractive personal spats. I'm missing hatboy.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 3, 2004)

you'se lot are takin this all a bit too fuckin seriously


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 3, 2004)

I don't think they're taking it seriously enough. I want HB back.


----------



## ernestolynch (Apr 3, 2004)

its only a ffycin internet messageboard


----------



## pooka (Apr 3, 2004)

1. A break will do hatboy good. It was sad to see someone, who's such a nice bloke in the real world, getting so upset on a bulletin board. And some of that upset was clearly leading to an immoderate, moderating style.

2. If pk is seeking to persuade, rather than inflame, than a less shock-jock approach might help. To some degree, pk and hatboy are mirror images, which is probably why they irritate each other so much.

3. It's a bit sick-making that some posters who have pioneered vicious personal attacks on the forum generally, and mercilessly baited hatboy in the past, are now sanctimoniously rushing to his defence.

4. There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world  Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest. Not what we come here for.


----------



## wiskey (Apr 3, 2004)

i havent read this thread. 

hatboy after the stunt you pulled last week on the thread i started imo you can fuck off

wiskey

edited up on reflection - i think perhaps you would do best to quit moderating the brixton forum.


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

> To some degree, pk and hatboy are mirror images, which is probably why they irritate each other so much.



I would agree with this Pooka, we're both as bad as each other IMO.

I don't want him gone, though I know he wants me banned from Urban permanently.

Life, eh?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 3, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> 3. It's a bit sick-making that some posters who have pioneered vicious personal attacks on the forum generally, and mercilessly baited hatboy in the past, are now sanctimoniously rushing to his defence.


Oh pooka's got his bumper bag of porkies out again.  Yes, hatboy has had big spats with me and others before now. Some people have felt they were being attacked by hatboy at times and have defended themselves accordingly. They have then forgiven and forgotten because it wasn't such a huge deal at the end of the day and because above all they want hb to remain as moderator. It's very sickmaking that you keep coming out with this spiteful, dishonest horseshit. You accuse other people of ''vicious attacks'' when you're one of the nastiest perpetrators. You just dress it up to try to make it look like reasonable comment. You aren't fooling anybody. If you want people to be nice, why don't you lead by example and stop your own nasty  personal attacks? 





> 4. There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world  Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest. Not what we come here for.


 What this really boils down to is that you don't like people posting strong arguments that aren't  in accordance with your own views. Oh stop whining. 

Oh and incidentally, fidel (  ),  if I am foul mouthed and ''almost comically aggressive'', what does that make PK? But that's ok, isn't it, because he's a geezer.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 3, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Well I think it's fucking great this has all kicked off.
> 
> You've heard of the Brixton riots - well this is the virtual version.


 That's what you really want, then? Something that is entirely detrimental to the Brixton forum in particular and urban75 in general.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 3, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh and incidentally, ... if I am foul mouthed and ''almost comically aggressive'', what does that make PK? But that's ok, isn't it, because he's a geezer.



Undirected aggressiveness (as distinct from justified rage at LB Lambeth or others in positions of power) is counter-productive, because it destroys rational debate ... not because anyone might consider it "unladylike"! 

FFS IntoStella - for the first month that I was posting in this forum I assumed, from the unbridled aggressiveness of your posting style (and yes it is aggressive, not assertive), that you corporeal self had to be male, and that any use of the feminine pronouns in your posts was solely an ironic reference to your lagered-up username.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 3, 2004)

I deleted the post that I just wrote because cooling things down is often best done with silence and chilling out, and I will start with myself (on this thread/forum anyway).

*goes off to look for a fight in P&P*


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 3, 2004)

erk - I just can't help myself!

(post deleted again)


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2004)

Fuck. Is this thread still going on?

Well, it's my birthday and I'm going to get drunk. All are invited, but at the first sign of this thread spilling into my happy clappy night, the bouncers will be called!


----------



## nanoespresso (Apr 3, 2004)

Some thoughts.

This is getting seriously out of hand. Urban is a community, and like any community, there will be those among it you dislike and avoid. You enter a pub, see the bloke in question, but ignore him and enjoy your pint with your mates. You don't publicly challenge and antagonize him the whole evening long.

The problem with boards is the ease at which confrontation can take place, and a public record of the events remain. I strongly suggest posters learn to ignore personal attacks, and refrain from initiating them. Yes this is stating the obvious.

HB, please return. Moderation is a bitch job, and a thankless one at that. U75 won't be the same without you.

Editor, i'm confident the last thing you had on your mind when you started this community was to nanny a collective bunch of adolescent chest-beating, it's a shame it occupies so much of your time. Hope your b-day is a good one. Cheers.

-mike.


----------



## johnny v (Apr 3, 2004)

> On the whole - Jamaicans run the crack, Albanians run the whores, Russians run the money laundering.



as ice t says in new jack city - i dont have a plane
who do you think really runs the crack
just to remind you crack is just freebased cocaine which has been used, sold and smoked for years by all races
and not much coke comes from the carribean, although it may pass through there 

im from bradford originally- lots of prostitutes no albanians - maybe they commute

if this was a newspaper youd be lucky not to be prosecuted under the race relations act



> I just don't like the "misfit" mentality that someone who does fuck all but moan has more right to live in Brixton than a young professional,



i have a problem with the amount of cocaine taken every night by young rich professionals in brixton turning them into boring fuckers and generally supporting the cocaine trade which causes real problems in the caribbean and southern america, but then guess that dont bother you

why you not going on about that - or the erosion of brixtons culture by young white professionals, the rising house prices, the poor forced out of the borough and middle class twats trying to move the problems of brixton down the road to streatham, thus giving them the cred of a brixton address but never actually having too deal with working class people or problems

cos lets face it your scared of working class people

and you know what

you fucking wanna be you racist cunt


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2004)

johnny v said:
			
		

> you fucking wanna be you racist cunt


I haven't the time to examine who's said what in this thread so I'm not taking sides about this, but could peeps please refrain from abusive language like the above?

Ta.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Gramsci - nowhere have I said ALL Albanians control whores, nor have I once said that ALL Jamaicans run the crack.
> 
> That would be fucking stupid.
> 
> ...



   I am not using my "imagination" Im querying various statements that you made in your posts.Your not answering the questions or entering into a debate.See my post 170 on page 7


----------



## johnny v (Apr 3, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> I haven't the time to examine who's said what in this thread so I'm not taking sides about this, but could peeps please refrain from abusive language like the above?
> 
> Ta.





> What are they doing? Are they looking for dropped drugs or - surely not - looking for a discarded needles to inject themselves with (some of the filthy cunts leave their stinking, blood spattered needles all around the bushes).



your words mike - only acceptable if people cant answer back eh


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> 1. A break will do hatboy good. It was sad to see someone, who's such a nice bloke in the real world, getting so upset on a bulletin board. And some of that upset was clearly leading to an immoderate, moderating style.
> 
> 2. If pk is seeking to persuade, rather than inflame, than a less shock-jock approach might help. To some degree, pk and hatboy are mirror images, which is probably why they irritate each other so much.
> 
> ...



   Reply:

 1)Hatboys moderation has been consistent.Its only now it appears to have become an issue.As various posters have said HB has always been upfront.Give examples of where his moderating "style" has now become "immoderate".

 2)No they are not mirror images.HB has a combative posting style but is genuine in what he posts up.pk clearly links to wind people up then does not enter into a debate.Shock jock is an apt term for a poster like pk.I dont feel HB posts up "Shock jock" style.

 3)Who exactly do you mean?pk has been mercilessly attacking HB but wants him to stay as a mod.do you mean posters like that?

 4)At no time have I constrained "real" debate.I fully accept I use "ideological" arguments.So does everybody-Tories,Liberals etc.To argue that their is a "smug tag team" is saying their is a clique.This is the subtext of what is underlying this thread and the other thread on a blander Brixton.Can you explain who the "we" are who the "smug tag team" are putting off?And also give a what your definition of "real" debate is.I dont understand how debate can be constrained here when you are at liberty to start your own threads.If Im considered to be part of thre tag team so be it.But my posts are always thought out and deserve IMO not to be regarded as "constraining" debate.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2004)

miss minnie said:
			
		

> i am talking purely about moderation.  sometimes the shouting and bullying that is allowed to go on leads to polarisation in the debate.  a thread can become a two-sided shouting match.  a little more judicious moderating might mean that more opinions get heard, more lurkers might post, imo.  recently the place has reminded me of the house of commons.
> 
> i don't see how you arrive at 'more balanced'='blander' - i get 'more opinions'='more interesting'.  i guess i just don't find shouting matches as interesting as some seem to.



  The trouble is I fear that their are differing opinions as to how this is being caused.HB does not like the fact in his opinion that posts of the likes of pk are not being remarked on.Pooka thinks people are being put off by a "tag team" who "contstrain" debate.You see my view on the subtext thats going on here is that I(and the Gang of Four) are being seen as part of the problem.Pooka is saying that the debates are being constrained-you are saying more "lurkers" might post up if their was less "shouting and bullying".

  Im concerned that a new moderating style for the Brixton Forum will be aimed at someone like me and the opinions I put forward here.Thats why I think HB has got a point.Im not in real life good at shouting matches.Here I have the distance to be able to express my opinions.If people are "shouting" in internet terms that does not stop me posting up.These posters are not actually in front of me being intimidating-they dont no where I live.Therefore I am safe to post up what I want.

  The only danger Im under is if the moderating style here changes so that someone my "ideological" views gets told not to post as Im putting others off.

  IMO their is little space for the views of someone like me in everyday society.U75 provides that space.When I hear the word "balanced" used in this context it come across as though a poster like me is stopping the fictious "silent majority".

  Newbie also i think brought up the question of what I mean by "mainstream".My definition is that on the surface it encourages differing opinions whilst policing debate.Mainstream is an exclusionary practise in itself.Its what IMO HB often remarked on when he said he did not want Brixton Forum to turn in MyClapham.com.Im sure MyClapham.com does not explicity stop posters.The same tactics are used,for example against Trade Unionists.Their is talk of supporting Trade Unions but that they must be handed "back to their members".

  One of the good things that always brings be back to U75 is the lively debate.What some might see as a shouting match I see as a lively forum.It would not be like this if it was not warts and all.

  Ive never reported a post to a moderator.I look after myself here.If someone does not want to enter into a debate I move on.

   That reminds me i did talk to you a while back on the fact that U75 can be rather male dominated.So perhaps Im contradicting myself here.Though I noticed that Lang Rabbie assumed Intostella was a man from her "aggressive" posting style.So maybe this is not a male/female thing-often a criticism of parliament.If anything I have more problems on some of the other boards of U75 than this one.

  I think given its only accessible by those with the know how on computers their is a range of views here.


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2004)

johnny v said:
			
		

> your words mike - only acceptable if people cant answer back eh


Oh, good grief. What a pitiful excuse for an argument that is. 

There is a *world of difference * between *directly* insulting a poster during the course of an ongoing public debate and passing comment on a generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people.

If you're that desperate to stir it up, I suggest you find a half-decent point to progress from.


----------



## johnny v (Apr 3, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, good grief. What a pitiful excuse for an argument that is.
> 
> There is a *world of difference * between *directly* insulting a poster during the course of an ongoing public debate and passing comment on a generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people.
> 
> If you're that desperate to stir it up, I suggest you find a half-decent point to progress from.



aint desperate to stir it up but aint what youre doing worse, when i read the post of yours i quoted and some of the subsequent comments i could not believe the level of hostility and prejudice towards some vulnerable and ill people

to disenfranchise an entire group of people you dont know by calling them filthy cunts is far worse then making a direct respone to someone within the constrains of a heated debate

your post and pk's make me feel like im reading the daily mail

why do you think you have drug users rummaging in your bush or selling crack on the streets of brixton

do you think they're happy

do you think they wanted to turn out that way

do you have any idea the lives some poeple have to endure in brixton and in this city

do you think it helps to call them filthy cunts

i made a direct response to racism on these boards, using strong language 

it may not be the best comparison in the world to refer to your comments, but it is rank hypocrisy to accept that to stereotype and call an unknown group (who are no less or more anonymous than pk, although you did give details of where they hang out) a bunch of filthy cunts is fine, but to use the same language against someone who clearly holds racist views with which i disagree is unacceptable.  interesting that you should object to my post and not the 'joke' about murdering albanians

i think the problem is that you dont think those filthy cunts deserve the same respect as people who post on your website



> passing comment on a generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people.



you didnt pass comment you called them filthy cunts
they are not unknown, at least to anyone who knows you because you were all having a conversation about where they hang out and how they behave


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That's what you really want, then? Something that is entirely detrimental to the Brixton forum in particular and urban75 in general.



Not what I want at all, but inevitable, non?

This is like Brixton's 'virtual' riots.

Would you say the riots were detrimental to Brixton in the long run?

No, I think the cops needed to be told en masse to fuck off with their bigotry and narrow minded shelving of Brixton residents.

Same thing's happening here innit.

I am surprised at the flounce, but it all needed saying IMO - and it was all being hinted at by others LONG before I waded in.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 3, 2004)

johnny v said:
			
		

> your words mike - only acceptable if people cant answer back eh


I think its a bit different making a very general statement about a type of person doing specific anti-social things and making the same statement about a specific individual, don't you think? In any case, you should save that kind of stuff for the real racists - like the BNP trolls who occasionally come round these boards, rather than a regular poster who isn't particularly racist (based on my impression of the totality of their posts on urban75) but just isn't particularly politically correct about the way they talk about stuff. There is a very big difference and I think if you were being fair then maybe your language would reflect this?


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

oh my gosh.

this is not good.

It is good practice that if somebody has a concern with a moderator, they should bring that concern up directly with the moderator and then with the editor.  

I think that the input of a moderator defines their board.  

That this is Brixton board, should be reflected in the amount of multi-racial posters.  Unfortunately, it is dominated by white posters.

Hatboy recognises this, and is proactive in his formidable commitment to equal opportunities and working to ensure that the board is accessible for intelligent debate to the community that it is intended to represent.

Maybe some would dispute my opinion, as I am an unregular poster.  If this was a board that reflected Hatboys ideals, I would post more frequently.  

I would like to take this opportunity to take my hat of to hatboy.

Big kiss rachel

PS anybody who got beef with hatboy has got beef with me.


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

Johnny V - so you're a Bradford lad are you?

I know plenty about Bradford having lived there for quite a while, and whilst I was there did everything I could to improve the pitiful relations between working class white and Asians, in a variety of ways I'm not spelling out for you here.

You call me a racist yet you don't back it up - same as all the other kneejerkers.

If you know anything about organised crime in London (not Yorkshire) then you would know that the Albanian contingent has displaced the prostitution business, they are ruthless fuckers and many people have died.

But you haven't a clue about London have you mate, it's obvious, so why not get your facts straight before you wade in to something that doesn't concern you?

The Albanians will probably be heading to Bradford shortly, so let's see how your opinions are moulded then... heaven forbid that you'd agree with me if you actually knew the facts...

As for crack dealers ... you defend them because you know fuck all about them... or me for that matter... if you did you would be aware of the extent of my rants that concern the cocaine taken every night by young rich professionals in brixton, supporting the cocaine trade which causes real problems in the Caribbean and Southern America does bother me and I have bashed on about this issue on this site before, and have done for many years, so again your position of ignorance lets you down here.

As for the erosion of Brixton's culture by young white professionals, the rising house prices, the poor forced out of the borough and middle class, well that's happening all over the country, and though it may be that Brixton is a magnification of this effect I don't subscribe to the "trendy" benefits of living there because I couldn't raise a child amidst needle strewn parks or streets garnished with human shit because bowel control isn't a skill that opiate or crack addicts are renowned for.

Scared of the "working class"? Scared of being called "racist"?

Not by you Johnny, because from what I can see you don't really know what the fuck you're talking about mate.

I'm not a racist, I might provoke a bit of banter, but someone has to, and there's many a black man or woman who would agree with me, the level of sanctimonious bollocks coming from some people here is fucking hysterically funny to me.

pk


----------



## white rabbit (Apr 3, 2004)

unwise post


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

PK

banter is great fun
your banter is not
it is racist
and you provoke it because you are racist.
have you considered anger management.

all the best

rascal


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

Again, all the usual lazy accusations but still no proof.

Quote my "racism" - it should be easy for you surely?

I don't edit posts so anything I have typed will still be there for you.

You prove I am a racist or shut the fuck up with your silly names, it's really quite simple old chap.

Rascal, indeed.


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> i think u should stick around, but give up the moderating... things are out of control right now, and it appears to be based partly on your inability to separate moderating and posting.. whatcha think? this forum would miss you if you werent here in some capacity, and i think you would miss it...




isn't the personal the political.

That I believe that it is, creates untold problems  However, the problems that it creates are far outweighed by the benefits.

I would more than miss hatboys unique moderating style.


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Again, all the usual lazy accusations but still no proof.
> 
> Quote my "racism" - it should be easy for you surely?
> 
> ...




I think that you are doing a fine job of that yourself.


----------



## Loki (Apr 3, 2004)

pk isn't a racist - end of.  I've been on these boards for a few years so I'm sure I would have noticed by now.  Yes he has an abrasive posting style now and again but to call him racist is absurd.


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

Thank-you, Loki.


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

thinking about stuff


----------



## pk (Apr 3, 2004)

Not all junkies are scum.

Only the ones leaving needles in parks and suchlike.

What Mike was saying on the other post.


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> On the whole - Jamaicans run the crack, Albanians run the whores, Russians run the money laundering.
> 
> What the fuck is racist about that statement?
> 
> Perhaps if a few home truths are accepted then constructive measures could be devised, inclusive of the communities concerned, rather than gasps of shock that someone could DARE criticise Brixton for it's fucking blatant problems.




You have acknowledged what you call the home truths, and problems, now come up with some solutions.  

Consider whether you 'abrasive style' is progressive or whether it perpetuates problems?


----------



## rascal (Apr 3, 2004)

don't care what mike was saying, and don't see how you can justify what you say by the example of another person.

nobody is junk - therefore nobody is a junkie.
nobody is scum.

have friends who use, desperation is a terrible thing and leads people to forget themselves.


----------



## behemoth (Apr 3, 2004)

*Just read this navel gazing thread.*

Well that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back.


----------



## pk (Apr 4, 2004)

rascal said:
			
		

> You have acknowledged what you call the home truths, and problems, now come up with some solutions.
> 
> Consider whether you 'abrasive style' is progressive or whether it perpetuates problems?



My endeavour to find solutions rests in the power of consultations.

If I were less abrasive and more of a sycophant to the consensus, then there would be little achieved here.

Perhaps by chucking up a little hypothesis, a statistic, or a verb, that stirs people more passionate than I to at least consider what is true in their hearts then I have achieved something of more value than a hearty round of backslapping.

I don't do Sega, or Dungeons and Dragons, or football in the park on a Sunday. I do Urban75 instead. I don't really know why, and I certainly haven't got the time for all this.
The first thing I do on the driving games is crash into the nearest tree.
The true calibre of your simulated driving game is the quality of your crash.

In truth I certainly didn't come here to usurp the moderator, who at the end of the day I really truly do hold a high regard for. He knows it too, the slag.
But if the shit fits, we can all pick up the bits, and that is the nature of the game.

I got solutions. How about "get more proactive in RL as opposed to VR".

It could be worse. We could be dead, or something.

Brixton is like life, it's what you make it, but I will defend the right of my friends to walk alone down Coldharbour Lane without the fear of being ripped apart, whoever they are, whatever they are wearing, and whatever time of day.

If the bad scary "gentrification" monster protects the right of everybody to walk free in their own town then it is no monster.

Who is anybody to hold Brixton back from what it is to become?

It is the secretive, the possesive spirit of Brixton that is its Achilles Heel.

Reclaim the streets for fucks sake, but step light them nicely and don't let the bastards grind you down.


----------



## aurora green (Apr 4, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> If the bad scary "gentrification" monster protects the right of everybody to walk free in their own town then it is no monster.




Mate, you of all people, I have no wish to take on, but really, 
this is THE most ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.


'cos of course for sure, the rich will save us all.


----------



## pk (Apr 4, 2004)

It's not about being rich, it's about taking steps to reclaim your town, and it needn't mean displacing the poorer people at all.

Given the choice I'm sure many of Brixton's genuine poor would prefer to be moved a mile or so away and safe, rather than running the gauntlet of dealers and pimps to get to their front door at night.

By coincidence, AG, the most ridiculous thing I have read here is one of your comments.



> "The other day, I was meeting my kids dad in Brixton and we arranged to meet at the Lounge after hearing good stuff about it, but when we got there and looked in the window, *everyone in there was white, and we just didn't fancy it*."



I define racism as judging people by the colour of their skin, which is precisely what you did here.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 4, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> I don't do Sega, or Dungeons and Dragons, or football in the park on a Sunday. I. We could be dead, or something.




Give it time!


----------



## aurora green (Apr 4, 2004)

Look, my post may well have been ill thought out, but you know, its the way I feel.
I dont live in Brixton to participate in some kind of unofficial apartheid, when I go out I want, as I've allready said, a mixed vibe. A vibe that reflects one that I encounter in everyday life; in the playground, the school disco, the mother & baby group, doctors surgery, whatever, I do not feel comfortable in a white only place in the centre of Brixton, and niether would I really go for a pint in the Angel either, if I'm honest. If you interpret me to be some sort of inverse rascist from these comments, then so be it. I' not that bothered about what you think of me when you think that moving the  'genuine poor' people out of the area, would improve things, it shows so little insight and understanging of the area.


----------



## pk (Apr 4, 2004)

"Moving the poor out" is a radical and unworkeable proposal in reality, but I was putting up an example.

Redevelopment is inevitable though.

And I am as pissed off as the next person about stupid trendy wine bars and daft prices for housing, but I do believe that urban regeneration can work if carried out with serious consultation with the community, not just money men calling the shots for their own interest.

But if I were an impoverished person living in central Brixton I would take the option to move into a nicer place whilst the crack problem were tackled properly, as opposed to staying there and watching things get worse.

Given the choice, that is.

The value of a community will always be greater than the value of it's property.

Aurora, had I said "we got there and looked in the window, everyone in there was black, and we just didn't fancy it" then I would have been rightly crucified.
The same rules have to apply both ways.

Though I respect and appreiciate your honesty.


----------



## davey (Apr 4, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> 4. There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world  Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest. Not what we come here for.



yeah, well I seem to remember complaining about this on the boards a while ago - about how there was an anti-outsider mentality that might discourage newcomers contributing - whether on the boards or in local politics/community action. I think IntoStella said something along the lines of "if you can't handle this you wouldn't last five minutes in local politics" Well that told me, and I slunk off for a bit. Posting in the Brixton Forum can feel a bit like walking in to the Slaughtered Lamb or whatever pub it was in "An American Werewolf in London" but would you leave the pub or buy a pint? There is no tag team here, but a group of people who may have similar views about local issues and may know a teensy bit about them. A lot of them drink in the same pub and know each other but because it's the *Brixton* forum isn't that innevitable?

I like to keep up to date on Brixton issues - I like to read what Anna Key is up to in council meetings. When I talk to my mates about stuff going on in Brixton I'm often asked "how the fuck do you hear about this stuff?". I discovered Urban because of a link from another site which questioned whether they should hold nights at the Dogstar because of the *alleged* door policy, then read about Paddick meetings and went along to them. Whether they like it or not, the "gang of four" encourage middle-class newbies like me to get involved. I also like the way fanta challenges some opinions and I think that if you don't agree with what perhaps the majority of posters say you can:-

1. Fuck off

2. Stick up for yourself and your opinions and engage

3. Cry "Mummy the big boys won't let me play", wait for an opportunity to have a go at one of the regulars and then behave like a pack of hyenas and vent your frustrations through personal attacks while throwing someone's very real contributions to Urban75 back in their faces.

Hatboy has been known to have a dig at people, me included, and I don't like his condemnation of people as boring but it would be unfair not to recognise his contributions. I hope I'm wrong but I have an awful feeling that some posters on these pages have been delighted in the way someone has been upset and hurt, and if you've not been hurt by "just words" in the past they you're very lucky. It goes beyond schadenfraude (sp?) and becomes just plain spite - and it's not the first time it's happened


----------



## pk (Apr 4, 2004)

> I have an awful feeling that some posters on these pages have been delighted in the way someone has been upset and hurt.



Well I don't take any delight in Hatboy's injured feelings, and am well aware of his positive contribution and commitment, which does outweigh his quirky prejudices against "Claphamites" or whatever.


----------



## pooka (Apr 4, 2004)

<Post deleted in the interests of calming things a bit. I'll happily answer Gramsci's queries by PM if he wishes>


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 4, 2004)

davey said:
			
		

> I like to read what Anna Key is up to in council meetings.


    

Others use them as a cure for insomnia.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 5, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> There is a *world of difference * between *directly* insulting a poster during the course of an ongoing public debate and passing comment on a generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people.



This is a fundamental issue for me. And it's part of the reason why I'm leaving moderating this forum. Whether it's junkies outside your flats (which is what your statement refered to), crack addicts, weed sellers, homeless or tube ticket touts - those people that are  a "generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people" to you, are not to me.

I know some of all of those types of people.  Some of the people in Brixton who by conventional ideas of status are nothing, have been the most giving to me. 

There but for the grace of god, go you, go us all, go I.


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 5, 2004)

*haven't read the whole thread, but FWIW.....*

Hatboy should definitely stay. Many people on here have pointed up certain of his idiosyncrasies, but he really is committed to Brixton and contributes a lot to the community.

IMO, FWIW I think Fanta and Athos are a pair of sanctimonious arseholes. No offence!


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> IMO, FWIW I think Fanta and Athos are a pair of sanctimonious arseholes. No offence!


None taken!


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 5, 2004)

Ms T said:
			
		

> i think we're getting to the crux of this matter now.  Nobody on this forum likes to think of themselves as conservative



Uh??  

Ms T, you know me better than that.

Here's my tuppence anyway (which I tried to post on Friday just as the boards went down, so apols. for lateness).

Although I disagree with him on many (most?) subjects aired on here, I think Hatboy should stay as moderator.  He is knowledgeable and, in my opinion, argues intelligently and provocatively.  I have seen no persuasive evidence that his moderation is unfair.

As for PK's original post, it did not seem to me, on balance, to be racist, but was clearly open to that interpretation and therefore, in my opinion, misguided.  Really only for this reason though: Pk says he wants to debate the issues he raises and yet opened the debate with such obviously controversial/inflammatory 'headlines' he ensured that no reasoned argument followed, only invective.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> This is a fundamental issue for me. And it's part of the reason why I'm leaving moderating this forum. Whether it's junkies outside your flats (which is what your statement refered to), crack addicts, weed sellers, homeless or tube ticket touts - those people that are  a "generic bunch of unnamed, unknown people" to you, are not to me.
> 
> I know some of all of those types of people.  Some of the people in Brixton who by conventional ideas of status are nothing, have been the most giving to me.


Woo! Hold on there. I'm not going to leave this misrepresentation unchallenged. I wasn't making bold, sweeping generalisations about ticket touts or the homeless or unfairly dismissing Brixton's unfortunates.

I was specifically referring to the "filthy cunts who leave their stinking, blood spattered needles" in a play area outside my flat - despite there being a clearly labelled 'sharps' box only inches away.

I feel for them. I hope they can get the treatment and support that they desperately need and I'll support (and pay through my taxes) initiatives to help them. 

But I'll make *no excuses whatsoever * for calling them 'dirty cunts' because that's exactly what those individuals what they are.

Not all junkies are as irresponsible as these individuals. but their filthy antics endanger the lives of others. Live with it outside your front door for three years and see how you think....


----------



## pk (Apr 5, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> PK's original post, it did not seem to me, on balance, to be racist, but was clearly open to that interpretation and therefore, in my opinion, misguided.
> Really only for this reason though: Pk says he wants to debate the issues he raises and yet opened the debate with such obviously controversial/inflammatory 'headlines' he ensured that no reasoned argument followed, only invective.



I'm interested in the way people interpret things, and interested in sanctimonious accusations of racism from people who complain when a venue is "too white".

I "ensured" nothing, this whole thread was basically set up by Hatboy to attack me and to demand that I am banned from this site, when nobody took his cue he flounced, it's that simple.

If you can rise above the invective then you are debating, if not then you're being played like a sucka.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 5, 2004)

*Er ... precisely*




			
				pk said:
			
		

> Not all junkies are scum.
> 
> Only the ones leaving needles in parks and suchlike.



And not *all* Jamaicans run the crack, not *all* Albanians run the whores and not *all* Russians run the money laundering.

Whether or not this kind of comment is "racist" is a moot point, depending on your definition of racist.  What it certainly is is an example of stereotyping - taking some characteristics of a particular group (racial, religious, geographical or otherwise) and applying that to everyone in that group.

We all stereotype.  It's a natural reaction, probably a self-defence mechanism (Neanderthal man 1:  "Is that a man-eating dinosaur?", Neanderthal man 2:  "Well it's the same colour, shape and size as the one which ate Ug last week, let's leg it").  

Unfortunately we base it only on those we have met and have no information about the majority of others.  Police race relations training was all about introducing officers to "ordinary" people living "ordinary" lives to balance the fact that at work they tended only to meet people at their worst.

What we need to do is be aware that we do it and then force ourselves to ask if our preconceived idea is justified for the actual individual we are dealing with.

There are criminals, and organised criminals, in every racial and cultural group.  Their crime of choice varies.  But only a tiny proportion of the group is involved in the crime.  The vast majority of people are just doing their best to make the best of their lives for themselves and there families.

Remember that.

As hatboy said "There but for the grace of God go you, go us all, go I".   

And the grace of God may be withdrawn from us tomorrow.


----------



## newbie (Apr 5, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> <Post deleted in the interests of calming things a bit. I'll happily answer Gramsci's queries by PM if he wishes>




At least you got as far as posting it before purging it.  Mine get deleted before posting, in the interests of a quiet life.   



Personally I don't think Gramsci is one of those who make this an intimidating and unwelcoming place to post. Indeed the fact that he's prepared to reflect on how others see his posts is indicative of that.


I'd also like to say thankyou to Hatboy for all his efforts as moderator.  It's obviously been both stressful and distressing, but I hope also rewarding.  For my part I agree with what someone said above about how this forum wouldn't be as good as it can be without the efforts he's made nurturing it.  Thanks mate, I hope you stick around as a poster.



I hope the best of what he's set up can continue with a fresh moderator, but that the bullying evident to some of us can be curbed.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 5, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I hope the best of what he's set up can continue with a fresh moderator, but that the bullying evident to some of us can be curbed.


 Don't start shovelling the earth in too fast, newbie.       Many of us would still like more than anything for hatboy to reconsider. I shall be extremely sad if, having given it more time, he doesn't feel he can return.  I think your post above speaks volumes about where you're really coming from.  It's the age old story of people making snide, insidious personal attacks and then being incredibly sanctimonious about people who are at least forthright and honest about what they think.  There is a big difference between forthrightness and abuse  but not if your whole position is dishonest. 

I still don't think that the fact that there has been this nasty gang attack on hatboy means that things should necessarily be changed and I think anyone who is trying to push through a new agenda on the back of it is looking pretty damn shabby.

Rascal -- good posts.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 5, 2004)

hatboy;my suggestion
Take a 2 week break, a fiortbnight's chillpill/batteries recharger. On the whole yes, you're oversensitive) you do a fine job moderating this forum, but you seem stressed out (especially if *one* post on a 10 page thread was enough to drive you to quitting all by itself). 2 weeks away from the boards willls ee you return rejuvenated. gotta be worth a try


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 5, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> hatboy;my suggestion
> Take a 2 week break, a fiortbnight's chillpill/batteries recharger


 I agree, though I'm not entirely sure what a '' fiortbnight'' is. . 

Hatboy -- it is up to you but you'll be terribly missed if you jack it in. I hope you can reconsider.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> fiortbnight


= 2 week cruise round norway.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 5, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> = 2 week cruise round norway.


 In that case he'll need a personal escort. 

PS Who said you've got no sense of humour?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 5, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> On the whole yes, you're oversensitive) you do a fine job moderating this forum, but you seem stressed out (especially if *one* post on a 10 page thread was enough to drive you to quitting all by itself).




Red - It's the whole thing really. I've got to put my energy into other stuff in my life and somehow, with the help of certain antagonists, but not entirely because of them, my interest in u75 has died.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 5, 2004)

....................


----------



## chegrimandi (Apr 5, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Red - It's the whole thing really. I've got to put my energy into other stuff in my life and somehow, with the help of certain antagonists, but not entirely because of them, my interest in u75 has died.



HB I wish you all the best and hope time away will help reinvigorate you. It sounds like you've got a bit bogged down in all of it. Probably the best idea for a break then see......best of luck....


----------



## han (Apr 5, 2004)

x x x


----------



## pk (Apr 6, 2004)

Hatboy, if you really do fuck off then it would be a shame.

Don't take shit so seriously.

Especially mine.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 6, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> It's the whole thing really. I've got to put my energy into other stuff in my life and somehow, with the help of certain antagonists, but not entirely because of them, my interest in u75 has died.



I'm really soory as you know that you feel like this HB 

I wish you lots of luck with your new projects, but I hope you'll not _end up_ leaving U75 altogether. You can stand back from moderating, as others say a break is a good idea,  or even stand back from posting so regularly, but I hope you'll still be visiting and saying hello .... whether in RL or here 

I agree with Into Stella -- some of that wave of attacks on you was out of order. I'm standing apart from the pk argument (although I tend to agree with Mr BC and detective boy) but I think Athos' behaviour at times was even worse.

Here without your contributions would be a lesser place HB ... I hope you are able to reconsider after a break ...


----------



## Bond (Apr 6, 2004)

Hatboy will be ok.   He's got far too much going to for him to be further bothered about any of this anymore. Am pretty sure he'll pretty much keep in contact with a lot of people he liked anyway. Quite evident from this thread how much he was liked, not to mention will be missed from the recent replies.


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> ... but I think Athos' behaviour at times was even worse.



Eh?  I suggested that he remain as a poster but not as a moderator:  I didn't encourage him to leave, altogether (nor do I particularly want him too).

I didn't make any nasty personal attacks, and where my temper did spill over a little (on other threads) I later apologised.  In any event, I never said anything more harsh than what he'd say to others: it was just the usual cut and thrust.

Is it out of order for me to comment on the moderation of this forum?


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> I'm interested in the way people interpret things, and interested in sanctimonious accusations of racism from people who complain when a venue is "too white".
> 
> I "ensured" nothing, this whole thread was basically set up by Hatboy to attack me and to demand that I am banned from this site, when nobody took his cue he flounced, it's that simple.
> 
> If you can rise above the invective then you are debating, if not then you're being played like a sucka.



To be honest PK, I think you're the one who's been trying to sucka people since HB launched this thread with your post.  Since then, it's been one long pretty inglorious retreat from your high water mark argument that '99% of the crack trade is Jamaican' and that you'd sooner surrender Brixton to the Clapham-ites.  You've been trying to justify yourself ever since.

My point was and is, that if you wanted to generate debate rather than heat, you would not have made such obviously provocative and, I'm afraid, crass points in the first place.  You went on a wind-up and succeeded beyond your imaginings.


----------



## chegrimandi (Apr 6, 2004)

pk said:
			
		

> Hatboy, if you really do fuck off then it would be a shame.
> 
> Don't take shit so seriously.
> 
> Especially mine.



pk I think that's a bit disingenuous tbh.....knowing that hatboy cares passionately about the state of Brixton and what goes on there, then after having wound each other up about it for a long time then saying don't take it too seriously maaan is a bit dodgy, but then its nowt to do with me.....as you were....


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> At least you got as far as posting it before purging it.  Mine get deleted before posting, in the interests of a quiet life.
> 
> Personally I don't think Gramsci is one of those who make this an intimidating and unwelcoming place to post..



I agree entirely.

I'm not sure the issue is one of intimidation - more just sheer bloody weariness!


----------



## newbie (Apr 6, 2004)

I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Red - It's the whole thing really. I've got to put my energy into other stuff in my life and somehow, with the help of certain antagonists, but not entirely because of them, my interest in u75 has died.


OK  . I sensed it was the combination of a whole lotta things, accumulating over time. 
I can't help feeling that U75 has been a big enough part of your life for long enough to ensure you'll never fully walk away-and that is all to the good. Take some steps back, recover your critical distance etc...
Let's talk about it soon in the Albert, eh?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.


 If people put up crap arguments then those arguments will get dismantled.

In people post up nasty, insidious and thoroughly dishonest personal attacks on other people under a thin veneer of sanctimony then the same thing applies. 

If I think you are talking through your hat, newbie (I don't always), I will say so.  If I think you are being spiteful and dishonest, pooka, I will say so, and any amount of  self-righteous whining isn't going to stop that.  

Let's take a case in point. At one stage pooka deliberately attempted to create the impression, to anyone who hadn't been paying attention, that Anna Key is in favour of crack houses because they hold back gentrification. This is a vicious piece of misrepresentation in my book. How DARE you whine about the tone of this forum when you are one of the worst perpetrators, pooka? And don't think a lot of other people haven't clocked your game either. 

I just don't buy this intimidation argument. You are both veteran political warhorses and it rings entirely hollow.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.



Blummin emma - you're one of the most considered and least provocative posters on the Brixton forum. I'm sorry you should feel like that. 

For myself, I just find the predictable abusive postings become a tedious disappointment. They also take an effort of will not to respond in kind. So that the whole experience of posting in Brixton becomes a negative one


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Blummin emma - you're one of the most considered and least provocative posters on the Brixton forum. I'm sorry you should feel like that.
> 
> For myself, I just find the predictable abusive postings become a tedious disappointment. They also take an effort of will not to respond in kind. So that the whole experience of posting in Brixton becomes a negative one


You do respond in kind. You just do it in a thoroughly underhand way.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.


That really troubles me because that's not how I want these forums to appear to posters.

I'm going to look into sorting this out. I'm not happy with people saying that they feel bullied and intimidated here.


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I just don't buy this intimidation argument.


For the record: I've had several people mail me to say that they have felt too intimidated to post in this forum, and several posters have already said much the same in various threads here.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Let's take a case in point. At one stage pooka deliberately attempted to create the impression, to anyone who hadn't been paying attention, that Anna Key is in favour of crack houses because they hold back gentrification. This is a vicious piece of misrepresentation in my book. How DARE you whine about the tone of this forum when you are one of the worst perpetrators, pooka?



Utter tosh. You'll have a job to prove it. The exchange was (on one of the gentrification threads):
_
Anna Key claims that the local police only work to WH Smith and Sainsbury's priorities and not those of "ordinary people" on the estates.

pooka asks Anna Key if, when people on the estates are out applauding the police as they close crack houses, he [Anna Key] is going to go round and tell them [the people on the estates] that they are running dogs of WH Smiths and Sainsbury's

IntoStella rounds on pooka with "How dare you accuse Anna Key of being in favour of crack houses"._

What a classic example you've furnished us with - thanks, Instostella.




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> And don't think a lot of other people haven't clocked your game either



Really? Which people?


----------



## Pot-Bellied Pig (Apr 6, 2004)

I used to feel a bit like that when I first started posting here. After one particularly nasty post by someone wishing my husband would be shot dead I did consider not coming back. Then I though, fuck it, why should I not post any more? It's only a message board and I do have the 'ignore' button.

(Stobart posting.)


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> For the record: I've had several people mail me to say that they have felt too intimidated to post in this forum, and several posters have already said much the same in various threads here.


 I was referring to two posters in particular who are in no way political shrinking violets and I think it's disingenuous of them to make out that they are. 

What is it that people don't like? The politics? The irony is that HB put forward that argument many times and yet the people who have made a push  to get rid of him have lumped him in with the ''gang of four''. Oh the irony. 

There is a huge difference between political rough-and-tumble and calling people cunts. There is also a huge double standard between what is seen as acceptable behaviour for men and for women. 

I'll just shut up and go and take my babycham off into the corner now.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.


I'm thoroughly sorry to hear that, as I've never found your posts to be any other than reasoned and well-considered
in fact I'm astonished-you're a fairly _robust_ poster, hardly a poor wilting li'l flower. in what way do _you_ feel intimidated?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> For the record: I've had several people mail me to say that they have felt too intimidated to post in this forum, and several posters have already said much the same in various threads here.


I realise you can't na,me names, but could you please say in what way (ie more specifically) they found this forum too intimidating.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> For the record: I've had several people mail me to say that they have felt too intimidated to post in this forum, and several posters have already said much the same in various threads here.



If that's because they feel _intellectually_ intimidated, tough.

The level of debate in this forum is, in my opinion, higher than, for example, the general forum, where the debate often centres on such fascintaing subjects as whether you fancy any other posters  

It's certainly more rough and tumble here.  People can't get away with sophistry.  That's a good thing.


----------



## Rollem (Apr 6, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> If that's because they feel _intellectually_ intimidated, tough.


what an intellectual post in itself 

as for hatboy, all i can say is  

the darker side of urban, eh?


----------



## Domski (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> If people put up crap arguments then those arguments will get dismantled.
> 
> In people post up nasty, insidious and thoroughly dishonest personal attacks on other people under a thin veneer of sanctimony then the same thing applies.
> 
> ...



IS - please don't take this as a personal go, please... it's honestly not meant to be... 

Your posting style _can_ be *viscious* and I'm not sitting here 'pissing my pants' (as you once said to me) because I *can* stick up for myself but I don't think it's _sometimes_ necessary to stand your corner so verociously. I'm sure it's part of your nature and it's often an admirable quality (as displayed by your fierce and understandable loyalty to hatboy) but is it _really_ necessary? 

I really didn't want to cause trouble and hatboy leaving is a real shame. I do think it's an overreaction on his part because like a lot of people have said he adds shitloads to this forum. Despite all the 'nastiness' there have been some genuine posts about how people feel about posting in this forum both as locals and outsiders which have created a lot of food for thought in a pretty positive context.

I personally think that the role of moderator is a thankless task, but I reckon you should be expected to be attacked for 'extreme' views if you have the implied extra influence that being a moderator brings. I do think it's probably best that hatboy has a rest from moderation, as he'll now be FREE to get stuck into really telling it how he sees it. I'm afraid the bitterness kind of crept in when he started being a little bit exclusionary AND I think worse, writing replies to people's post's in the editing line... that hardly constitutes a level playing field as people are quite rightly protective of what they write up here.

Anyway - I'd hope the discussions on here DO become more inclusive now, and a lot less personal, not because of Hatboy leaving, but simply because this debate has taken place. 

I had a go at Hatboy for his moderating style and what I believed to be hypocritical views... that to me was the argument - it had nothing to do with hatboy the boy


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

I agree with much of that.


----------



## newbie (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I'm thoroughly sorry to hear that, as I've never found your posts to be any other than reasoned and well-considered
> in fact I'm astonished-you're a fairly _robust_ poster, hardly a poor wilting li'l flower. in what way do _you_ feel intimidated?




I'm not, I think, robust in the way that eg pk or ern are robust.  I don't invite attack, and I don't think I've ever, in the time that I've been here, responded in kind to an insult.  But in the last few days, in this forum, I've been called dishonest, snide, pofaced, boring, sanctimonious and accused of making insidious personal attacks.  

Now I don't think it's only poor flowers who wilt... none of those character assasinations deal with what I'm saying, they undermine who I am. They don't, taken as a whole, attempt to discuss different viewpoints, they attempt to bully me into submission.  The intent is to cause offence, and in that they succeed.

If, every time I post I'm left feeling that I'm somehow inadequate as a person, I see little point in posting.  


It's not just me, of course.  Over the course of these threads I've seen pooka accused of lieing and Miss Minnie told to grow up, amongst plenty of other accusations and putdowns.  They can stand up for themselves, of course, but again these were attacks on who they are rather than on their opinions.  I see no reason at all why polite and considered people should have to put up with that.  

And, of course, attempts to discuss bullying or intimidation have been derided as evidence of eggshell personality disorder or lack of sense of humour.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> I really didn't want to cause trouble and hatboy leaving is a real shame.


Well you have.



			
				editor said:
			
		

> For the record: I've had several people mail me to say that they have felt too intimidated to post in this forum, and several posters have already said much the same in various threads here.






			
				Mr BC said:
			
		

> If that's because they feel intellectually intimidated, tough.


Exactly. Editor: did you ask them *why* they felt intimidated? If so, what was the answer?

I posted, on about page 10,698 of this thread, that I want everyone to be welcomed and to _feel_ welcome on these boards.

But if 

"Oh I feel so intimidated!" 

is code for 

"I posted up some rubbish and someone told me it was rubbish and explained why" 

then they can - with respect - go boil their heads.

I don't like people being verbally abused. That applies equally to PK with his "Shock-Jock" posting tactics - excellent in a board war, less useful on this forum - but why should those with eggshell personalities be permitted to dictate posting policy on this forum?

I also reserve the right to laugh at, to ridicule, to deploy all the vituperative arts, and generally to pillory the "We must all be fun and lighthearted!" brigade. 

I'll be serious when I want and light hearted when I want. The "Oh we must all go round with permanent grins on our faces!!" crew can go boil their heads also.

NB Does inviting someone to "boil their head" - a la Nancy in _Swallows and Amazons_ constitute verbal abuse? If so I'm _terribly sorry_ that vast numbers of good decent Brixtonians will have been grossly intimidated and upset by this post. 

Perhaps they should see a shrink. Or pull the duvet over their heads. Or avoid reading Authur Ransom.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> NB Does inviting someone to "boil their head" - a la Nancy in _Swallows and Amazons_ constitute verbal abuse?



*sighs*  Swallows and Amazons.  Why don't youngsters read that in schools anymore?  Such a sound political message there ...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I'm not, I think, robust in the way that eg pk or ern are robust.  I don't invite attack, and I don't think I've ever, in the time that I've been here, responded in kind to an insult.  But in the last few days, in this forum, I've been called dishonest, snide, pofaced, boring, sanctimonious and accused of making insidious personal attacks.


 I think you may have been taking on board criticism that was levelled at someone else. 


> Over the course of these threads I've seen pooka accused of lieing and Miss Minnie told to grow up, amongst plenty of other accusations and putdowns.


No. If someone lies and their lie is exposed, that is not a personal putdown. Surely you can see that?

Also a lot of remarks that are made are tongue in cheek, ie 'grow up'.  I think anyone getting upset over that would certainly be having a touch of the eggshells, letalone a total SOH failure. 





> but again these were attacks on who they are rather than on their opinions.  I see no reason at all why polite and considered people should have to put up with that.


 They don't. If people dish out personal attacks, however subtly they do it, they will get responses in kind.  There is a lack of tolerance to bullshit which I think is great and which I will be very sorry to see go if it does. Even Mr BC has agreed with this!   Also, as someone else has said, the forum in many ways reflects the in-yer-face nature of the place itself, which strikes me as fitting.

What I see a lot is people having their politcal arguments dismantled and then whinging about being personally attacked. Where? There is a total difference between attacking someone's actions (ie misrepresenting other posters) and attacking who they actually are. SURELY that is clear?


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> But if
> 
> "Oh I feel so intimidated!"
> 
> ...



Anna, I think if people find themselves being called liars, stupid, working to a hidden agenda, having egg-shell personalities, and so forth, they either feel "intimidated" (if they're new here especially) or just irrated beyond measure, to the extent that they just feel "why bloody bother", and stop posting.

The behaviours being described are not about disagreement and explanation - they're about gratuitous abuse and the avoidance of true debate.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Careful Stella. You're attacking people's _arguments._ Some will take that as an attack on _them._ And reach for the Duvet.

Stop being so intimidating! Be nice! Be fun and light hearted! Or talk about how _dreadful_ the nasty dirty drunks are in Tate Gardens.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> The behaviours being described are not about disagreement and explanation - they're about gratuitous abuse and the avoidance of true debate.


Pooka dear. I assume you're talking about yourself?


----------



## editor (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I realise you can't na,me names, but could you please say in what way (ie more specifically) they found this forum too intimidating.


I'm not really interested in getting involved in this thread - I fear that whatever I say will only spark off a re-run of previous arguments.

But I do think _some_ of the posters had a point.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> The behaviours being described are not about disagreement and explanation - they're about gratuitous abuse and the avoidance of true debate.


 Oooh! _Behaviours!_  Look out, AK. He's getting all clinical on us. 

Has pooka called the men in white coats to come and take us away?   Wibble!


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> If someone lies and their lie is exposed, that is not a personal putdown.



From the context, I mustr assume you're calling me a liar. A splendid example of what we're talking about.

Can you now please:

Show where I've lied?
Show where this "lie" has been exposed?

If you can't, then please apologise unreservedly.

If you can do none of those things, then people must form their own views of your integrity. 

More generally, can you take pause and reflect on the damage you are doing to what is otherwise an excellent web resource for people who live in Brixton?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oooh! _Behaviours!_  Look out, AK. He's getting all clinical on us.
> 
> Has pooka called the men in white coats to come and take us away?   Wibble!



I reckon that's the kind of post that might scare off potential posters on this forum.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Ah:Into "Mick McMannus" Stella jumping on the ropes, whilst Anna "Giant Haystacks" adjusts his mask and wrestlers tights! What's it to be - three falls or two submissions?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna, I think if people find themselves being called liars, stupid, working to a hidden agenda, having egg-shell personalities, and so forth, they either feel "intimidated" (if they're new here especially)


 Ahh, here we go again. You launch a stinky attack. You get a response in kind. Suddenly it's not about _you_, the old warhorse, but about all the _new_ people.  

Exactly the sort of bull that we have_ cross-party agreement _ should not be allowed to go unchecked. 

It's very simple, pooka. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I reckon that's the kind of post that might scare off potential posters on this forum.


 Oh come _on_, OU. It's perfectly  clear to everyone that pooka isn't some innocent new poster being bullied by that nasty AK and i2s.  You know that _perfectly well_. Your comment is disingenuous. Is that a personal attack?


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Ah:Into "Mick McMannus" Stella jumping on the ropes, whilst Anna "Giant Haystacks" adjusts his mask and wrestlers tights! What's it to be - three falls or two submissions?



More seriously,  I feel never so vindicated in the stregnth of my arguement, than when Anna and Stella are reduced to this sort of duet - genteel condescention from Anna on the one hand, a boot in the goolies from Stella on the other.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 6, 2004)

*Oh come on, OU. It's perfectly clear to everyone that pooka isn't some innocent new poster being bullied by that nasty AK and i2s. You know that perfectly well. Your comment is disingenuous. Is that a personal attack?* 

Is that paranoia?  or just an 'eggshell personality'


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh come _on_, OU. It's perfectly  clear to everyone that pooka isn't some innocent new poster being bullied by that nasty AK and i2s.  You know that _perfectly well_. Your comment is disingenuous. Is that a personal attack?



What's perfectly clear is that neither you or AK are prepared to entertain the idea that this forum is not functioning as an inclusive space.

Despite the fact that quite a lot of people have said that is how they see it.

Obviously they're all either nasty & underhand or have eggshell personalities.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka[B said:
			
		

> ]"Originally Posted by IntoStella
> If someone lies and their lie is exposed, that is not a personal putdown.  "[/B]
> 
> 
> ...



In your own time, i2s


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> ...Show where this "lie" has been exposed? ...
> More generally, can you take pause and reflect on the damage you are doing to what is otherwise an excellent web resource for people who live in Brixton?


You have repeatedly, deliberately and systematically set out to misrepresent other posters, what they stand for and what they and their colleagues are doing politically in Brixton. 

You have said, for example, that posters who are concerned about gentrification actually want drug abuse and crime levels to rise. This is a vicious lie. What YOU are doing is damaging to the Brixton boards. What if people want to post about local issues but feel they will be on the receiving end of such slurs from YOU if they don't agree with you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh come _on_, OU. It's perfectly  clear to everyone that pooka isn't some innocent new poster being bullied by that nasty AK and i2s.  You know that _perfectly well_. Your comment is disingenuous. Is that a personal attack?


Pooka's innocence/experience is irrelavant to a Brixton resident browsing the boards and considering contributing.
My post was not a personal attack cos I am also guilty of ridiculing others - I think robust argument is probably more valuable than the possibility of scaring away new posters but we have to accept that many people/posts ARE intimidating to some people who might have something valuable to contribute.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> In your own time, i2s


 Not that you are ever guilty of bullying.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Snorkelboy said:
			
		

> What's perfectly clear is that neither you or AK are prepared to entertain the idea that this forum is not functioning as an inclusive space.


Why is that clear? I am happy to entertain the idea that this forum is not functioning as an inclusive space.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Why is that clear? I am happy to entertain the idea that this forum is not functioning as an inclusive space.



Yes i see I worded my post badly.

I think it's a shame that you are happy for that to be the case.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

Using "behaviours"  - to describe a pattern of actions and interactions by others - does not mean that Pooka was attempting an amateur diagnosis of a clinical mental health problem in certain posters.

It's a perfectly legitimate, value-neutral phrase used by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and criminologists, as well as clinical psychiatrists.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

err, snorkelboy, AK meant 'happy to consider the possibil;ity that this has happened", like...not that he thought it a good thing


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Using "behaviours"  - to describe a pattern of actions and interactions by others - does not mean that Pooka was attempting an amateur diagnosis of a clinical mental health problem in certain posters.


<slaps forehead> Has _anybody_  got their iron-o-meter switched on today?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Snorkelboy said:
			
		

> I think it's a shame that you are happy for that to be the case.


Wot Jezza said.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna, I think if people find themselves being called liars, stupid, working to a hidden agenda, having egg-shell personalities, and so forth, they either feel "intimidated" (if they're new here especially) or just irrated beyond measure, to the extent that they just feel "why bloody bother", and stop posting.
> 
> The behaviours being described are not about disagreement and explanation - they're about gratuitous abuse and the avoidance of true debate.



Hmmm.  Surely these criticisms can't have come from the very same person who wrote:

"4. There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest. Not what we come here for."


----------



## Domski (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> <slaps forehead> Has _anybody_  got their iron-o-meter switched on today?



'Yes, but the trouble is that you're not at all funny... etc etc... viscious post... etc... etc...

STOP... those are the kind of answers that cause it all to kick off and were precisely the words you used after I asked you if your ironometer was working after the VERY UNSERIOUS but perceivedly bigotted comment I made...

It's just stuff like that, that's all.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Wot Jezza said.



Well I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you.  But you don't half seem to be keen on repeating the idea that people are coming in with bad arguments and are just getting debates.  And why the mention of "eggshell" personalities - surely that's implying that people are imagining the problem.  or am I misunderstanding


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Ah:Into "Mick McMannus" Stella jumping on the ropes, whilst Anna "Giant Haystacks" adjusts his mask and wrestlers tights! What's it to be - three falls or two submissions?


 Of course, as you well know, I can't stand up on my own in an argument and need to have a man to help me.  

I am totally lost when I haven't got my burly bodyguards, Anna Key and Pickman's Model, to protect me.


There, calibrate your ironomenters on that.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You have repeatedly, deliberately and systematically set out to misrepresent other posters, what they stand for and what they and their colleagues are doing politically in Brixton.
> 
> You have said, for example, that posters who are concerned about gentrification actually want drug abuse and crime levels to rise. This is a vicious lie.



Nope, that's not what I've said. I've said that posters seem to take comfort in the notion that Brixton's reputation will act as a bulwark against gentrification (and by implication would be less happy if that reputation diminished), as in 




			
				isvicthere? said:
			
		

> and simply hope that the reputation for danger/crime wich Brixton still enjoys/endures is enough to prevent it becoming a real blando rats' nest for the rich like Notting Hill.


 (here 

Or Anna's assertion, in one of the older gentrification threads that "Brixton's weapon against gentrification is the capacity to pull a political riot from time to time" (or words to that effect, Anna can correct me). 

What irks me is that neither isvic or Anna are likely to get turned down for a job because of a Brixton address; young black kids are. And I presume that isvic doesn't engage in a spot of mugging nor do I quite see Anna loping down Brixton High Street with a liberated ghetto blaster chumba-chumba-chumbing on his shoulder. That's a role for someone else is it not?

So now, show me where I've lied?


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Surely these criticisms can't have come from the very same person who wrote:
> 
> "4. There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest. Not what we come here for."



Yep, the very same person - I called no-one a liar, or stupid, or glass backed or whatever.

I'll buy that "Their aim etc......", could be better expressed as "The effect......."; I don't know whether it's an explicit aim or habits of a lifetime!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 6, 2004)

I wish I had the time to contribute to - or even read - the millions of posts on this thread (and the other related ones in this forum from the last few weeks). Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately!) I don't, and even if I did, I think I'd try to avoid these roundabout arguments. Where do you lot get the time from???????!!!!! 

There's some excellent, knowledgeable, intelligent and articulate posters here who continually amuse, entertain and inform me on all matters Brixton. More of that please and less personal abuse!  (am I sounding like a tetchy moderator now?   )

Love up!


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Yep, the very same person - I called no-one a liar, or stupid, or glass backed or whatever.
> 
> I'll buy that "Their aim etc......", could be better expressed as "The effect......."; I don't know whether it's an explicit aim or habits of a lifetime!



Calling them 'smug' is abusive is it not?

Referring to them as a 'self-assembling tag team' might be taken as suggesting they work to a hidden agenda, might it not? 

Suggesting that they 'constrain debate to a mutual-grooming fest' was all,of course, in the interests of promoting debate?

People in glass houses ...


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Referring to them as a 'self-assembling tag team' might be taken as suggesting they work to a hidden agenda, might it not?
> 
> People in glass houses ...


Damnit! I was about to make a deeply tasteless - but fun and light hearted - joke about pooka, fanta, Bob and lang rabbie being a 'self-assembling tag team' of Liberals working to a secret agenda whilst exchanging racy John Stewart Mill texts - Inter-Lib-Porn? - on the internet.

But I can't now.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Nope, that's not what I've said. I've said that posters seem to take comfort in the notion that Brixton's reputation will act as a bulwark against gentrification (and by implication would be less happy if that reputation diminished), as in
> 
> (here
> 
> ...


I don't know (or care-not my affair) if you've lied or not, but I do think you've wrenched it wildly outa context here. 
Put back in the context of those original threads, IIRC, both posters were profoundly depressed by the high crime rates in Brixton-and the idea that AK welcomes a  riot is outrageous-but the consolation is that, PARTLY due to this, brixtron is too edgy, stroppy and unpackageable to be Claphammed. 
In other words, viewed through the prism of how developers think (the safe option wins every time), Brixton presents too big a _challenge _.And if that means some good can come from social ills, well why not?  
That, IMHO, is what Vic & AK meant, and I feel the same way. either way, it's a long way from what you're suggesting


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I was about to make a deeply tasteless - but fun and light hearted - joke about pooka, fanta, Bob and lang rabbie being a 'self-assembling tag team' of Liberals


They're the Gang of Four, aren't they?


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Calling them 'smug' is abusive is it not?
> 
> Referring to them as a 'self-assembling tag team' might be taken as suggesting they work to a hidden agenda, might it not?
> 
> ...




I think we're a bit at cross purposes Mr BC. By "self-assembling", I specifically meant without a purposeful design, as in the way some cellular structures are "self-assembling" ie they naturally fall that way, without concious decision.

 'constrain debate to a mutual-grooming fest' 

I think by driving out dissent (through "intimidation" or exasperation) from what is held up to be the orthodoxy, that is the net effect.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 6, 2004)

*I Love this...*

IntoStella said:If people put up crap arguments then those arguments will get dismantled.


Oh yes this coming from someone who accuses me of being a malicious bully for suggesting certain arguments are a pile of crap and explaining why.....  

Hypocrite...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Oh look, a tedious troll.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> That, IMHO, is what Vic & AK meant, and I feel the same way. either way, it's a long way from what you're suggesting



Sorry Jezza, but I don't think it's a long way at all. Most to the point, I *do* care if someone calls me a liar, and I *do* think its the sort of accusation that destroys debate.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Damnit! I was about to make a deeply tasteless - but fun and light hearted - joke about pooka, fanta, Bob and lang rabbie being a 'self-assembling tag team' of Liberals working to a secret agenda whilst exchanging racy John Stewart Mill texts - Inter-Lib-Porn? - on the internet.
> 
> But I can't now.



Oh go on!

If we do form such a tag-team, then it truly would be "self-assembling" (from my point at least) since (1) I've never met any of the other three or (2) I have no notion of their polictical allegiance, 'cept for Bob who I think has declared LibDem allegiances. 

(But they do seem a thoroughly sensible bunch   )


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Buzz sw9 said:
			
		

> My girlfriend no longer uses urban75 because she says she just can’t stand the abuse


But that's to do with all the boards, not just Brixton, isn't it?  The Brixton boards are different, as has been said before, because of the level of personal involvement and the heated nature of many local issues. I think that needs to  be considered as distinct, in the context of this debate, from the general rough and tumble of other parts of the boards.


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> But that's to do with all the boards, not just Brixton, isn't it?  The Brixton boards are different, as has been said before, because of the level of personal involvement and the heated nature of many local issues. I think that needs to  be considered as distinct, in the context of this debate, from the general rough and tumble of other parts of the boards.



IS, a number of people have told you that they find (or have heard others say that) this forum is intimidating.  Does that bother you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2004)

i've never found the brixton forum intimidating. there seems to be a stratum of posters i find distasteful: but not intimidating.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think by driving out dissent (through "intimidation" or exasperation) from what is held up to be the orthodoxy, that is the net effect.


 Funnily enough, I always see ''the orthodoxy'' as being  precisely your line. 

I think of you as a sort of one-man Lambeth council. They could save millions by getting rid of everybody else and just hiring you instead. Perhaps they could  put the saved money into social  housing.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> (But they do seem a thoroughly sensible bunch   )


I agree. John Stewart Mill talked a lot of sense.... for a Trotski-Liberal- Imperialist- Running-Dog-Revangist.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think we're a bit at cross purposes Mr BC. By "self-assembling", I specifically meant without a purposeful design, as in the way some cellular structures are "self-assembling" ie they naturally fall that way, without concious decision.
> 
> I think by driving out dissent (through "intimidation" or exasperation) from what is held up to be the orthodoxy, that is the net effect.



Ok. So there are two propositions.  Firstly, that there is an orthodoxy on here.  Secondly, that those who don't follow it are driven away by either intimidation or exasperation (whether organised or not).

In respect of the first, I entirely accept that there is a view expressed on this site about gentrification which is, broadly speaking, shared or sympathized with by many posters.  I would stop short of calling this an orthodoxy, not least because of the almost total lack of agreement as to the manifestations of the problem, never mind the solution. 

The second point though, seems to me, to be wholly misconceived.  There are vigorous disputes and occasional intemperate words but is this really any more 'intimidating' or 'exasperating' than any disagreement between reasonably well informed, reasonably intelligent people, in the pub or over dinner?  

Maybe my friends are all argumentative cunts but this really seems pretty tame to me.  I honestly can't see what the Editor is worried about and I really do want to know.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I always see ''the orthodoxy'' as being  precisely your line.


There's orthodoxy and there's orthodoxy.




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> I think of you as a sort of one-man Lambeth council. They could save millions by getting rid of everybody else and just hiring you instead. Perhaps they could  put the saved money into social  housing.



What a curious comment - it's entirely beyond me to fathom  





			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> I agree. John Stewart Mill talked a lot of sense.... for a Trotski-Liberal- Imperialist- Running-Dog-Revangist



Could you translate, Anna please? This polito-speak is beyond me. Didn't Mill pre-date Trotski?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> IS, a number of people have told you that they find (or have heard others say that) this forum is intimidating.  Does that bother you?


 Yes, it does, but I do think a lot of people are claiming to be abused when in truth they have just come up against some robust political debate. A lot of  threads in the Brixton forum are totally fluffy. I'M totally fluffy in real life! 

But these are issues I care about and argue passionately about. LOADS of people  come in and post who aren't Brixton forum regulars. 

Buzzsw9's post above indicates that it is not just the Brixton forum that people sometimes find intimidating. Do we have to fluff down the whole thing? I don't think so. As AK said, at the end of the day it's only a bulletin board. Nobody is going to get thumped over it. I am always happy to see people like pooka socially and would never dream of carrying over any board arguments into real life.  If people don't live in the area and haven't followed the forum for very long then it is bound to look opaque. What are we supposed to do about that without making it pointless to even _have_ a Brixton forum?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I think by driving out dissent (through "intimidation" or exasperation) from what is held up to be the orthodoxy, that is the net effect.


I think there is a distinction that can be drawn between heated, occasionally vitriolic debate, on the one hand, and intimidation on the other. 
Most posters I know here care passionately about issues such as gentrification,  policing etc (I know you do, for one), and so Things can get heated. Equally, a lot of the people here really know their local onions, and could perhaps be more tolerant of newcomers not as well versed as they. 
Also, this forum has more than a few umm, _robust_ personalities, and personality clashes are not infrequent.
However, as for conscious, intended intimidation, I don't think that's the case. I can't recall any point at which U75 has made me feel that way - and I really do think I would notice.
And-to reiterate what others have pointed out-at the end of the day, it's onlyh a BB. Hardly, Stalingrad '42, ffs!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> Hardly, Stalingrad '42, ffs!


Which conjures the image of the great urban75 gang-of-four-liberal-axis - pooka, fanta, Bob and lang rabbie - high on vodka and Benzedrine, fighting house to house on the Moorland Estate.

Борьба за социализм, товарищей, в одной стране!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> There's orthodoxy and there's orthodoxy.


 What a curious comment - it's entirely beyond me to fathom


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> ?????? ?? ?????????, ?????????, ? ????? ??????!


 That's intimidating to those of us who computers  don't suppport cyrillic typefaces.  (I'm guessing it's cyrillic)


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 6, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Which conjures the image of the great urban75 gang-of-four-liberal-axis - pooka, fanta, Bob and lang rabbie - high on vodka and Benzedrine, fighting house to house on the Moorland Estate.
> 
> Борьба за социализм, товарищей, в одной стране!



Maybe not fighting, but delivering 'Focus' and reporting pot holes anyway.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

ah yes, the cry of the Liberal Democrat
"WHAT DO WE WANT?"
"gradual change!"
"WHEN DO WE WANT IT?"
"In due course!" "nothing to hasty", "don't rock the boat" etc etc


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Yes, it does, but I do think a lot of people are claiming to be abused when in truth they have just come up against some robust political debate. A lot of  threads in the Brixton forum are totally fluffy. I'M totally fluffy in real life!
> 
> But these are issues I care about and argue passionately about. LOADS of people  come in and post who aren't Brixton forum regulars.
> 
> Buzzsw9's post above indicates that it is not just the Brixton forum that people sometimes find intimidating. Do we have to fluff down the whole thing? I don't think so. As AK said, at the end of the day it's only a bulletin board. Nobody is going to get thumped over it. I am always happy to see people like pooka socially and would never dream of carrying over any board arguments into real life.  If people don't live in the area and haven't followed the forum for very long then it is bound to look opaque. What are we supposed to do about that without making it pointless to even _have_ a Brixton forum?



Many posters here are very passionate about Brixton.  Obviously, that has its positives, but can also have its negatives, when that passion spills over into aggression.

Also, there is a tight knit community here; again, that has many advantages, but the disadvantage is that people can percieve it as a clique.

There are many people who have invested a lot of time and effort into this forum, which, on the whole, has made it a much better place.  However, the flip-side of that is that, perhaps subconciously, they aquire a sense of ownership of it.

Also, it has been moderated by a real firebrand.  Hatboy's passion for Brixton (and its issues) is often used as a force for good, but, occasionally, such passion prevents him from being as good a moderator as he is a poster.

Another thing is that, there are new or infrequent posters who are defensive as a result an exagerated perception of aggression or cliquiness from the more established posters.  Accordingly, they'll make agressive and accusatory posts, or jump to conclusions without giving the established posters a chance.

New posters can bring a breath of fresh air but perhaps the downside of that is that they can ruffle the feathers of those who like the forum as it is, and accordingly ought to be more sensitive.

I know that I have been guilty of some of the above, and I apologise, particularly to Hatboy.  Perhaps we can all learn from what's happened in the Brixton forums over the last week or so, and use that for something positive.

Perhaps if everybody trys to maximise those positives, and recognises the negatives and, where possible, we all keep them in check, this forum can get even better.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Ok. So there are two propositions.  Firstly, that there is an orthodoxy on here.  Secondly, that those who don't follow it are driven away by either intimidation or exasperation (whether organised or not).
> 
> In respect of the first, I entirely accept that there is a view expressed on this site about gentrification which is, broadly speaking, shared or sympathized with by many posters.  I would stop short of calling this an orthodoxy, not least because of the almost total lack of agreement as to the manifestations of the problem, never mind the solution.
> 
> ...



With regard to your two points:

1. I think whether or not there is an orthodoxy on gentrification veers into a semantic arguement about degree. I'd say that some posters presume an orthodoxy that there is rampant gentrification going on in Brixton (there isn't); that key barometers of gentrification are the style and disposition of watering holes and this is an issue of vital importance to Brixtonian's (it isn't); that Lambeth Council are driving gentrification through Council sell-offs and that the housing tenure mix is changing at a calamitous rate (they aren't and it isn't); that supermarkets are the devil's work and little corner shops were well nigh social centres and their proprietors saintly social workers (they aren't and they certainly weren't)....and so on.

2. Anyone who dissents from these tennets is likely, not to have a set of reasoned arguements set against them, but to be denounced as stupid, disengenuous, Claphamite Tellulah or Tarquin, running dog of the council, or to have some unspecified "agenda". Indeed, during the first major gentrification thread last year (Selling Central Brxiton to Yuppies), those of us who had the temerity to query Anna's soaring rhetoric were told by hatboy that the thread was for supportive posters only and to butt out!

By the way, what's "Focus"?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> ah yes, the cry of the Liberal Democrat
> "WHAT DO WE WANT?"
> "gradual change!"
> "WHEN DO WE WANT IT?"
> "In due course!" "nothing to hasty", "don't rock the boat" etc etc



Er... wasn't that one about Fabian socialists?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Many posters here are very passionate about Brixton.  Obviously, that has its positives, but can also have its negatives, when that passion spills over into aggression.
> 
> Also, there is a tight knit community here; again, that has many advantages, but the disadvantage is that people can percieve it as a clique.
> 
> ...


 Agree with much of that too,     as I did with much of what domski said earlier (I'm not as intransigent as I'm painted, ya see), though I _would _like hatboy to come back. 




			
				Mr BC said:
			
		

> Maybe my friends are all argumentative cunts but this really seems pretty tame to me. I honestly can't see what the Editor is worried about and I really do want to know.


Your friends and mine should get together over dinner.  Now THAT would be interesting.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Indeed, during the first major gentrification thread last year (Selling Central Brxiton to Yuppies), those of us who had the temerity to query Anna's soaring rhetoric were told by hatboy that the thread was for supportive posters only and to butt out!


 The point was that it was a crucial and immediate issue to a lot of people in the real world (see buzz's comments above) and hatboy didn't want it trolled, not that no dissenting voices were to be allowed.  

Discussion on u75 over these issues with people who don't agree has enormously strengthened our arguments. Having lots of people saying "I agree!" "Me too!" is  all very lovely but it doesn't give one much of a weapon when it comes to the real battles in the real world.  In fact that thread saw a fantastically lively and ultimately very constructive and useful debate.  It was a corker.


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Agree with much of that too,     as I did with much of what domski said earlier (I'm not as intransigent as I'm painted, ya see), though I _would _like hatboy to come back.



I'm sure none of us (even me) are as bad as we've suspected (and, sadly, accused) each other of being, and that, in 'real life' we'd probably get on well.  Unfortunately, there's something about this form of interaction that makes it all too esay to lose sight of the fact that there's a difference between posters and posts, and that there are sensitive people behind the usernames.  Whereas, face-to-face, I suspect we'd be able to disagree without being disagreeable, I know that I fall into the trap of posting in a way that I wouldn't dream of speaking to people, all too often, and apologise for it.

As it goes, I too would like Hatboy to come back as a poster, and, even if he were to come back as a moderator, I'm sure I'd try to be more understanding of his unique style, and suspect that, after all this, he'd perhaps be a little more sensitive to some of the concerns raised on this and other threads, recently.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> By the way, what's "Focus"?



Take your pick from: 
a) regular newsletters put out by the Lib Dems in their held and target wards (only parts of Brixton currently getting it recently are Stockwell and Vassall wards); 
b) not as good/frequent as it used to be since they've been too busy running the Council
c) a vile propaganda sheet;

I emphatically deny putting Benzedrine in the tea of liberal activists to encourage them to deliver the fifteenth Focus of the election campaign, during a previous life as an election agent in the early 1990s.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Take your pick from:
> a) regular newsletters put out by the Lib Dems in their held and target wards (only parts of Brixton currently getting it recently are Stockwell and Vassall wards);
> b) not as good/frequent as it used to be since they've been too busy running the Council
> c) a vile propaganda sheet;
> ...


What about the vodka?

Pooka, OF COURSE you knew all long precisely what Focus was, you cheeky thing!    

I used to ''get it regularly" in Gypsy Hill.


----------



## sufilala (Apr 6, 2004)

What's always confused me a bit about u75...
& is kinda relevant to all this... 
what the fuck is 'debate'? are there rules?? it all seems to be abit oxbridge debsoc/students uni/swp meetingish to me, 

what i notice is that there do seem to be posters who seem to have 'debating skills' and seem to slag off others who don't follow the rules - ie "produce evidence", "reply to my points", "ad hominem" - i mean latin ffs 

me i am happy to read discussion and opinions and assess their merits for myself, this expectation/maybe misconception that there is some structure to be followed in discussing stuff on the boards is very excluding, especially as it's often used to diss people's arguments, opinions etc...

if there's rules, then can i have a 'how to debate' faq please?


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 6, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I'm sure none of us (even me) are as bad as we've suspected (and, sadly, accused) each other of being, and that, in 'real life' we'd probably get on well.



People do get on very well in real life. This was demonstrated 2 years ago when most (if not all?) of the peeps posting in this form worked together on the Brian Paddick campaign.


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 6, 2004)

> I used to ''get it regularly" in Gypsy Hill.



and "Focus" to hey?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

sufilala said:
			
		

> What's always confused me a bit about u75...
> & is kinda relevant to all this...
> what the fuck is 'debate'? are there rules?? it all seems to be abit oxbridge debsoc/students uni/swp meetingish to me,
> 
> ...



Sufilala

Don't worry about rules.  

In another previous life I did much of the donkey work to keep a debating society running at a red-brick university.   I think it is fair to say that 70% of the audience came along because they found it entertaining (in the sense that Gladiatorial combat or Lions v Christians is entertaining  ) rather than to learn anything from the debate.

Unfortunately, some of our regular posters remind me of nothing so much as certain members of the then Federation of Conservative Students, the arrogant products of minor public schools who are now sadly mostly overpaid barristers.   They had an immense sense of self-importance and would regularly heckle inexperienced speakers.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What about the vodka?



I should have added "successful" election agent - vodka should only be given to leaflet deliverers once their blisters reach a state approaching gangrene - otherwise it slows their work rate.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 6, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I should have added "successful" election agent - vodka should only be given to leaflet deliverers once their blisters reach a state approaching gangrene - otherwise it slows their work rate.


 You rub the vodka on the blisters. 

Cuh! Call yourself an election agent?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You rub the vodka on the blisters.
> 
> Cuh! Call yourself an election agent?



Damn, the socialist hordes have found out the final element of the cunning plan!

Edited to add - 

[MASOCHIST]Come back Hatboy - I deserve to be chastised by a moderator for taking this thread further off course![/MASOCHIST]


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, some of our regular posters remind me of nothing so much as certain members of the then Federation of Conservative Students, the arrogant products of minor public schools who are now sadly mostly overpaid barristers.   They had an immense sense of self-importance and would regularly heckle inexperienced speakers.


umm...there's a kinda Irony here, in that someone who fits CERTAIN parts of this description is one of the last people I'd have identified as such in behavioural terms (online behaviour, that is).
you prolly don't yet know how intensely funny you've just been...


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

Having waded this far, thought I'd add a wee message of my own.

HB:  Please try not to let it all wind you up too much.  I sincerely hope the boards haven't seen the back of you.  Love xxx  


As for the rest of ya - Jeez!  You need your heads knocking together.  


SBC masquerading as Mum


----------



## sufilala (Apr 6, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Don't worry about rules.



cheers rabbie
i just find 'debate' gets all pompous & mornington crescent

but it's a lot worse in p&p


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> With regard to your two points:
> 
> 1. I think whether or not there is an orthodoxy on gentrification veers into a semantic arguement about degree. I'd say that some posters presume an orthodoxy that there is rampant gentrification going on in Brixton (there isn't); that key barometers of gentrification are the style and disposition of watering holes and this is an issue of vital importance to Brixtonian's (it isn't); that Lambeth Council are driving gentrification through Council sell-offs and that the housing tenure mix is changing at a calamitous rate (they aren't and it isn't); that supermarkets are the devil's work and little corner shops were well nigh social centres and their proprietors saintly social workers (they aren't and they certainly weren't)....and so on.
> 
> ...


Pooka, are we reading different boards or summink? 
For your first para-I honestly think you're misrepp-ing the case, in that the gentrification argument has never centred on the heroism of cornershops, but on the effect on the community of the whole process (and I DO think that the council want to sell off more public housing stock, and that tenure demographics ARE changing).
as to the second-you lost me. where is this hunting pack mentality of which you speak? For my part, I'll debate robustly, but do it by addressing the issues. At the core of it, I don't know of a single regular of this forum who is all that different, notwithstanding the occasional tantrum here & there


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> umm...there's a kinda Irony here, in that someone who fits CERTAIN parts of this description is one of the last people I'd have identified as such in behavioural terms (online behaviour, that is).
> you prolly don't yet know how intensely funny you've just been...



Most of the products of minor public schools who rebelled and became Maoists during their university careers very consciously avoided the debating scene and are now not-quite-so-obscenely-well-paid (but bought in Brixton, Camberwell, Hackney, Stoke Newington during the early 90s property slump) left-leaning-lawyers.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 6, 2004)

LR; err, no, not what I meant, ne'er mind...


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 6, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I know that I have been guilty of some of the above, and I apologise, particularly to Hatboy.  Perhaps we can all learn from what's happened in the Brixton forums over the last week or so, and use that for something positive.


I think I owe you an apology too, in that case.


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> I think I owe you an apology too, in that case.



Thanks, TeeJay.  That means a lot to me.  And I'm sorry for having antagonised you, in the past, too.


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 6, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> Thanks, TeeJay.  That means a lot to me.  And I'm sorry for having antagonised you, in the past, too.


Well I hope you don't intend stopping. 

Now, its getting too lovey-dovey in here! Where's that bastard ernesto? 

*stomps off to P&P for a verbal punch-up with class war*


----------



## Athos (Apr 6, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Well I hope you don't intend stopping.
> 
> Now, its getting too lovey-dovey in here! Where's that bastard ernesto?
> 
> *stomps off to P&P for a verbal punch-up with class war*



You'll find him baiting Solidarnosc on a thread (he started) on which it's claimed that a recent SWP meeting was segregated on the basis of gender!     Sadly, I tink this might be true, as opposed to another Ernesto wind up!


----------



## newbie (Apr 6, 2004)

I must apologise to pooka for dragging him in whether he wanted it or not.  That wasn't fair, particularly as I had to go out and wasn't here to put points myself.

Two things to say: no, I don't think I was "taking on board criticism that was levelled at someone else".  Even if I was, please explain to me the purpose of spiteful attacks on the personal qualities of other posters.  Because I just don't get it.

And 'eggshell personalities': no doubt a useful concept for a lawyer representing some giant insurance company against a personal injury claimant.  In the context of an adversarial courtroom that sort of dismissive characature is maybe useful, in a morally neutral sortof way, as one advocate seeks professional advantage over another.  But here...?  Are we all supposed to be so tough, insensitive to other people, prepared to use any device so long as we win?  Is that what this forum means?  Winning?

Because to me it's for pleasurable social interaction, a place to hang out, find out what other people think, chew the cud. I'm not interested in winning, nor in losing.   Sure, there are serious issues to discuss, issues which affect real people living real lives, but I fail to see who it helps to transfer realworld anger against institutions like Lambeth or social trends like gentrification onto the people who choose to post here, none of whom bear direct personal responsibility.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Pooka, OF COURSE you knew all long precisely what Focus was, you cheeky thing!



Nope - we don't get it, either because we're not in either of the wards lang rabbie mentioned, or because of the No Junk Mail notice on the front door (no offence).


red jezza: I think we have differing perceptions, and that's for sure.

sufila: i use the term "debate" to mean an exchange of arguements and evidence, with minimal personal insults or distorting what other people say - nothing more formal than that.

Anyways, I've said about all I want to on the issue. To be fair, the thread has given me some things to think about, as I expect most could say.


By the way, isn't "minor public school" so quintessential an English put -down?


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> posters seem to take comfort in the notion that Brixton's reputation will act as a bulwark against gentrification (and by implication would be less happy if that reputation diminished)
> 
> Or Anna's assertion, in one of the older gentrification threads that "Brixton's weapon against gentrification is the capacity to pull a political riot from time to time" (or words to that effect, Anna can correct me).
> 
> What irks me is that neither isvic or Anna are likely to get turned down for a job because of a Brixton address; young black kids are. And I presume that isvic doesn't engage in a spot of mugging



Where the fuck is this coming from? Why have you lumped me in with an argument that I am not involved in? And why are you making (very wide of the mark, as it happens) assumptions about me? 

Since ridiculous assumptions seem to be your lingua franca, kindly fuck off to a Clapham "style" bar with your yuppie mates, and choke on the £10 cocktails!


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Where the fuck is this coming from? Why have you lumped me in with an argument that I am not involved in? And why are you making (very wide of the mark, as it happens) assumptions about me?



If you read back through the context, then you'll see why. The deal has to be that anything any of us posts on a public board is available for quotation, surely. Apologies though if you have been discriminated against, in employment, on account of your address or if you do contribute to Brixton's crime figures.




			
				isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Since ridiculous assumptions seem to be your lingua franca, kindly fuck off to a Clapham "style" bar with your yuppie mates, and choke on the £10 cocktails!



This must be irony, right? If not, it's a classic.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> This must be irony, right? If not, it's a classic.


 You need to ask?   

Anyway, I thought we were all working up to the group hug.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> You need to ask?
> 
> Anyway, I thought we were all working up to the group hug.



Fair comment, I read it too quickly.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Can I get rid of this thread yet?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

I want to examine the 'clique' accusation a little more. 

Personally I don't mind that Pooka, Fanta, Lang Rabbie and Bob are part of a Liberal clique. It makes things easier: should they all bowl onto a thread with the same argument - which is what intellectual cliques do - you only have one Liberal argument to demolish as opposed to four. It makes things quicker, cleaner and more generally more efficient.

Also, should a clique use the 'mob' technique of argument it weakens their position in another way: they commit the logical fallacy _argumentum ad numerum_: the attempt to prove something true by showing that large numbers of people believe it. Therefore it must be true.

Sadly, even should the great Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie and Bob Liberal-axis simultaneously believe something to be true that doesn't _make_ it true. Life would be so much easier if it did.

I think Gramsci hit the nail on the head a few pages back when he referred to what EP Thompson called 'The Segregation of Dissent' (Writing by Candlelight. Merlin Press 1980). 

That seminal essay held that the


> traditional means of communicating dissent - 'heretical opinion' - had been marginalized or rendered redundant by the growing phenomenon of mass-media influence upon political debate. 'Politics,' warned Thompson , 'may soon settle down into a game of power at the top, with the media conditioning the public attitudes to which the politicians adjust their "images" in the hope of floating the marginal voter their way.'
> 
> Source


I come on these boards partly to witness - and participate in - the clash of 'heretical opinion' between opposing political positions (or 'cliques' if you prefer). I value witnessing argument between, say, Red Jezza and pooka or Intostella and Fanta or Mr BC and Bob. 

Why? Because 'heretical opinion,' as Thompson warned, has largely been frozen from mainstream political discourse. We're usually not permitted to hear such views, or witness such clashes. All we get in the mass media is wet Liberalism or authoritarian Conservatism. It's pretty thin gruel.

Or if 'heretical opinion' is permitted to emerge in the mainstream media it's normally as a stereotype or a straw man to be knocked down by the Liberal/authoritarian Conservative consensus.

Those holding such views are not permitted to present their _own_ arguments in their _own_ way, bringing colour and humour and culture and 'life' to their 'heretical' positions. At best they must be corralled and disciplined by David Dimbleby before being potted by a Liberal/Tory in a suit and a mandate from Millbank or John Smith Square.

Now I think the presence of 'heretical opinion' on these boards makes some people feel uneasy. For the reasons Thompson gives people just aren't used to it. It frightens the horses. It's been driven from mainstream life so when it emerges here some people get upset.

But the power of the web, and of institutions like urban75, is to render redundant the segregation of dissent as enacted by Rupert Murdoch and his friends. Heretical voices can once again be heard. Now some people will find this dangerous, threatening and subversive.

I hope the departure/removal of Hatboy from these boards won’t be the start of a more general ‘cleansing’ operation. I trust Mike not to do this.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

editor: I think that now this thread has settled down a bit, some useful work is being done and it probably would be a shame to bin it.

Anna: A big post which I don't have time to respond to in detail today, but briefly:

(1) A Liberal clique?: Repeating something doesn't make it true, even if it isn't challenged every time you say it. By Liberal do you mean LibDem? I'm certainly not, Bob and lang rabbie appear to be and I don't know about fanta. Indeed, I recall having a spat with Bob about Cllr Fitchett's bid for a council disposal. More to the point, I've never met any of those posters,

In contrast, one might more readily throw the epiphet "clique" at (say) yourself, gramsci, intostella, though I wouldn't especially choose to. Most times we've met in the real world (boozer, meetings, Country Show) you've been together, you swap notes on political tracts, you are (or have been) members of the same political party and so forth. 

I do rather feel therefore, that your labelling myself et al a clique is something of a distracting defence! But no matter.

(2) But from that starting point, it will not surprise you that I read everything that follows in your post more applicable to yourselves than to this putative Liberal clique viz:

_argumentum ad numerum_- certainly never used on here by myself (with regard to numbers of other posters, but perhaps in respect of people in Brixton generally) but generally used in support of the presumed U75 orthodoxy re gentrification, for example. Or to tell people who "don't have a stake in Brixton" to butt out.

The dissenting voice: Seems to me it depends at what level you're talking. It is certainly the case that, in terms of national politics, the pendulum has swung from the post-war settlement and a particular social and economic orthodoxy pervades, and indeed the media reinforce that. By the same token we can all recall the attitude of the Bennite left in Labour party to dissent from their orthodoxy - indeed, a glance through the P&P Forum on these boards demonstrates that intolerance of plurality is by no means unique to the Right or Centre.

But I can't see why these observations say that it's ok to try and stiffle dissent (from your so-called "Liberals") in this forum. You can't seek to justify something here by condemning it elsewhere. More generally, you shouldn't seek a victim's status to justify denying others.

As for hatboy, I hope he benefits from a break. In the meantime, I don't think any of us should start invoking him _in absentia _ in support of our arguements - specially not if we've been given to having a go at him in the past.


----------



## isvicthere? (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> This must be irony, right? If not, it's a classic.



Obviously! If I meant it literally, I wouldn't have called it a "ridiculous assumption". 

I don't wish to be drawn into the squabble this thread has descended into. Anna Key can argue his corner more than adequately. If you could too, you would not need to resort to dredging up an out-of-context quote by me from much earlier as a stick to belabour him with.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Repeating something doesn't make it true, even if it isn't challenged every time you say it.


 _Indeed_ , pooka.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

isvicthere? said:
			
		

> Obviously! If I meant it literally, I wouldn't have called it a "ridiculous assumption".
> 
> I don't wish to be drawn into the squabble this thread has descended into. Anna Key can argue his corner more than adequately. If you could too, you would not need to resort to dredging up an out-of-context quote by me from much earlier as a stick to belabour him with.



If you read back, you'll see that I've already admitted to reading your post hastily and beat my breast!

The post you have issue with was in fact a response to IntoStella, not Anna, and quoting your post was, I think, legitimate in that context. However, you've made it clear you don't like your posts being used in that way - so I shan't in future.


----------



## fat hamster (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Can I get rid of this thread yet?


Please don't!

Don't underestimate the sociological importance of U75, or the value of what is debated here (beyond just the personalities).  This is an important historical document.


----------



## silentNate (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Can I get rid of this thread yet?


 No, I think this thread should become a sticky til Hatboy returns...
I miss lurking his posts


----------



## hatboy (Apr 7, 2004)

No Mike, do not delete yet. There are some people I still want to see it. It shows why I stopped moderating here. I'd like that to stay for awhile.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> In contrast, one might


Might one?



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> more readily throw the epiphet "clique" at (say) yourself, gramsci, intostella,


Oh. Right. It's a Gang of Three now. What about poor old Jezza? Can't he be included?  He'll be dead upset.  



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> though I wouldn't especially choose to.


Good man. But you just have. But no worries.



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Most times we've met in the real world (boozer, meetings, Country Show)


And very nice it was too. Always a pleasure to see you (seriously). And didn't you once treat that Intostella to a highly subversive breakfast? She was dead-chuffed I can tell you.   



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> you've been together,


D'you think it would be wise for the 'Gang of Three' to meet less? How much less d'you think? 

I, on the other hand, have no problem whatsoever seeing you with your Police Committee chums as often as you like. Why can't you meet them whenever you want? Perhaps you should see _more_ of them. What possible harm could it do?



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> you swap notes on political tracts,


I don't recall swapping "political tracts" - or notes thereon - with Gramsci or Intostella. Which "political tracts" are you thinking of? And with whom, and when, did this subversive exchange occur? Was it behind the beer tent at the County Show? Outrageous! And of what did the "notes" consist? Were they excitingly _infra dig?_



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> you are (or have been) members of the same political party


I suspect Gramsci may have something to say about this.   



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> and so forth.


Indeed.

I know what to do, to kill this ‘clique’ accusation once and for all. 

Let's hire a private detective to follow lang rabbie _and catch him passing dangerously subversive "notes" to Bob on * Jeremy Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781).* _

Imagine the scandal...


----------



## newbie (Apr 7, 2004)

Has _anybody, anywhere, anytime_ complained about a clique of Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie and Bob?  It's laughable.

But ask yourself who's in the clique that has been complained about, repeatedly, by all sorts of people...  Not that I like the term 'clique' much, and I certainly don't go for 'Gang of 4'.  It doesn't work like that, and it's idle to pretend it does.  It's not formal or definable, but there is an axis of posters who all (appear to) socialise together, accept common subcultural points of reference and, perhaps crucially, appear to some of us to be intolerant of voices out of tune with their own, particularly on issues where they agree with each other.

moving on...

Do you really think that anybody here wants to freeze out what you're calling 'heretical opinion' (which I read to mean heretical with respect to the mainstream, rather than heretical wrt dominant ideas hereabouts)?  What I see here are attempts to develop it from the sometimes facile holes it's dug itself into, particularly with regard to gentrification, but also drugs, crime, policing.  Maybe I'm wrong- my involvement in the discourse is to discover if I am-  but tbh what you're presenting here as heretical has been pretty orthodox Brixton street leftism for decades and has gone, well, nowhere.  

There is virtually nothing in the anti-gentrification mix which wasn't commonplace in the squats and Labour Party rhetoric during the Ted Knight era.  We (and I mean 'we') need to move beyond repeating ideas which currently have little or no resonance amongst the vast majority of the population round here.  But that doesn't really happen because ideas are shot down in flames before they've been properly explored.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> No Mike, do not delete yet. There are some people I still want to see it. It shows why I stopped moderating here. I'd like that to stay for awhile.



Hatboy,

I don't want to be two faced, so I won't say that I didn't mean a lot of my criticisms of your moderating style, but I will say that I'm really sorry that I upset you.

Some of the personal stuff was totally unnecessary, and I feel bad that there were a few of us who were having a go at you.

As I said in a few places, I think your posts are often of the highest quality, and I'm sure that's a reflection of the passion that you have for Brixton, which is admirable.

I sincerely hope that you come back, soon.  As you will see on the boards, many others feel the same way.

Sorry, again.

Athos

PS I did try to PM you, but I couldn't.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 7, 2004)

*Humorous and lighthearted. And fun.*




			
				newbie said:
			
		

> Has _anybody, anywhere, anytime_ complained about a clique of Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie and Bob? It's laughable.


 How about an Impervious to Irony Gang of Two comprising your good self and pooka? 

Do we really need a _yes, I am being ironic_ smiley?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

Athos said:
			
		

> I feel bad that *there were a few of us who were having a go at you.*


Would that be a "clique" by any chance?


----------



## newbie (Apr 7, 2004)

_irony is a dog that bays at the moon while pissing on graves_


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Would that be a "clique" by any chance?



Looking back, I think it was more like a 'gang' as in 'ganging up' onto one person.  Not something I'm into, so I feel bad.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> Do you really think that anybody here wants to freeze out what you're calling 'heretical opinion' (which I read to mean heretical with respect to the mainstream, rather than heretical wrt dominant ideas hereabouts)?


Yes I do. Hatboy's gone. He was attacked by a 'clique' (or a 'gang') and left. That looks very like being ''frozen out' to me.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I hope the departure/removal of Hatboy from these boards won’t be the start of a more general ‘cleansing’ operation. I trust Mike not to do this.


What?!!! hatboy was not 'removed' nor 'cleansed'.

He left for his own personal reasons. The decision was entirely his and I certainly put him under _no pressure whatsoever _ to leave (in fact, I suggested that if it was getting on top of him he should take a two week break and then continue moderating)

I find the suggestion that there is any kind of 'cleansing operation' _even being considered_ very, very offensive. 

I have not stopped anyone posting whatever they like, but, as editor, I have to ensure that these boards remain accessible and open to as many possible as possible.

Recently, I've heard quite as few comments to suggest that this may not be the case for some posters. And that concerns me.


----------



## newbie (Apr 7, 2004)

> Yes I do. Hatboy's gone. He was attacked by a 'clique' (or a 'gang') and left. That looks very like being ''frozen out' to me



Ok.  I can see that as one interperetation of events.  I got the impression that you trusted Mike that this wasn't the start of some sort of opinion based purge (as do I).  Looking forward, are you concerned that there wont be space or opportunity for ordinary posters with heretical viewpoints (which is really what I was getting at)?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Always a pleasure to see you (seriously). And didn't you once treat that Intostella to a highly subversive breakfast? She was dead-chuffed I can tell you.



The pleasure's all mine, and yes we did have a Paddickistas breakfast sometime back.

I shan't respond item by item to your post other than to say I'm sorry you're irritated (it wasn't my intention), but hopefully you'll accept that if people are going to start lobbing about accusations of "cliques", then your house is a bit glassy. As for leaving out Jezza, I was unsure whether it should be Jezza, Pickman's or even isvicthere? But of course, that's cos I'd been a bit conditioned by this Gang of Four chat - no reason why a clique shouldn't be more, what's the upper limit would you say?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Might one?
> 
> Oh. Right. It's a Gang of Three now. What about poor old Jezza? Can't he be included?  He'll be dead upset.


'ere!! 'ow did I get missed aht of BOTH bleedin' cliques?? Infamy! Infamy! <cue drum roll> YOU'VE ALL GOT IT IN FOR ME!!!  
OK, OK, I'll get me coat.....


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> What?!!! hatboy was not 'removed' nor 'cleansed'.
> 
> He left for his own personal reasons. The decision was entirely his and I certainly put him under _no pressure whatsoever _ to leave (in fact, I suggested that if it was getting on top of him he should take a two week break and then continue moderating)
> 
> ...


As I said: 



			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> I hope the departure/removal of Hatboy from these boards won’t be the start of a more general ‘cleansing’ operation. *I trust Mike not to do this. *


 
And I meant it, particularly the last sentence.

The way I see it:

The contents of the Brixton Forum is governed by three things:

- libel law
- posting FAQ
- editorial line

Of these three things the first two are easy to define - no telling lies, especially about people with deep pockets and a litigious nature - and no sexism, racism, personal abuse, etc.

The third is more amorphous but it's definitely there. Every chunk of the media has its own editorial line. We all recognise how the Daily Mail handles a story differently from, say, the Guardian (or urban75).

Hatboy had his own editorial line - no doubt argued over at moderators' meetings, in the pub, round people's houses etc - but it was there. It was a line I particularly liked.

That line has now left with him. I think that's a shame. We've yet to see with what it will be replaced. I hope Hatboy returns (as does Mike - see above).

And I still wonder why Hatboy was attacked. Was it because of his occasional mistakes as a moderator? Or was it because of his editorial line?

In other words, _was it an attack on his admin skills or his politics? _ If it was an attack on his politics, and he's left as a consequence, then that worries me.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> The contents of the Brixton Forum is governed by three things:
> 
> - libel law
> - posting FAQ
> - editorial line



Eh? Where's this "editorial line" malarky come from? Surely any forum is governed by the FAQ. The FAQ includes guidence about libel. The moderator's job is to ensure that people observe what's set out in the FAQ. 

Isn't that all there is to it?

If there's an "editorial line" we have to adhere to then (1) we should be told it exists and (2) just what it is. Then we can make our choice whether we want to join in or not.

The major lesson of this thread to me is the extent to which we appear posting on different Brixton forums to different rules, without formally acknowledging it!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> no reason why a clique shouldn't be more, what's the upper limit would you say?


Five? Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie, Bob _and_ slazenger moss?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Eh? Where's this "editorial line" malarky come from?


It's the thing which makes urban75 different from, say, Popbitch or myclapham.com.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> And I still wonder why Hatboy was attacked. Was it because of his occasional mistakes as a moderator? Or was it because of his editorial line?


Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'. 

You clearly liked it, others clearly didn't.

I hope hatboy comes back in whatever capacity that he feels comfortable with, but I'm very confident that the Brixton forum will survive and grow: after all, it's the posters that matter the most - not the editor and moderators!


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Sadly, even should the great Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie and Bob Liberal-axis simultaneously believe something to be true that doesn't _make_ it true. Life would be so much easier if it did.


But aren't the LibDems divided over legalising Cannabis? Is there a Lib Dem "party line" about the Brixton Cannabis Festival since they seem to be hiding behind their Conservative partners on this one. 

(TeeJay leaves no opportnity for random point scoring unused. It must be an election year!  )

(This is a party political broadcastbrought to you by the Smoke Green? Vote Green! campaign)


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'.
> 
> You clearly liked it, others clearly didn't.
> 
> I hope hatboy comes back in whatever capacity that he feels comfortable with, but I'm very confident that the Brixton forum will survive and grow: after all, it's the posters that matter the most - not the editor and moderators!


That's a very interesting, and honest, post. Cheers Mike.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> But aren't the LibDems divided over legalising Cannabis? Is there a Lib Dem "party line" about the Brixton Cannabis Festival since they seem to be hiding behind their Conservative partners on this one.


They're liberals - all over the shop.  No internal party discipline.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> It's the thing which makes urban75 different from, say, Popbitch or myclapham.com.



I'd say its the people who choose to post there.

But your answere says what the effect of a putative aditorial line is, not whence it comes.

I can see that the ezine Urban75 has an editorial line, because it is edited and caries editorial material. But the boards? Why then aren't moderators termed editors?

Seriously, I'd like an authoritative answer to this one. Do these boards have an editorial line, how is it determined and what is it?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> But aren't the LibDems divided over legalising Cannabis? Is there a Lib Dem "party line" about the Brixton Cannabis Festival since they seem to be hiding behind their Conservative partners on this one.
> 
> (TeeJay leaves no opportnity for random point scoring unused. It must be an election year!  )
> 
> (This is a party political broadcastbrought to you by the Smoke Green? Vote Green! campaign)




Whoa. There ain't no axis and I ain't a LibDem. Thus does callumny spread!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I'd say its the people who choose to post there....
> 
> Seriously, I'd like an authoritative answer to this one. Do these boards have an editorial line, how is it determined and what is it?


Haven't you answered your own question? 

Editorial content is provided by the posters. Therefore, to develop and maintain a desired editorial line certain posters are encouraged, others discouraged.

I'm guessing here - so may be completely wrong and will hold my hands up - but can't think of any other way of doing it, given the forces involved.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Whoa. There ain't no axis and I ain't a LibDem. Thus does callumny spread!


Come on! Didn't you exchange "notes" about "political tracts" with Intostella over breakfast? Or am I getting confused with all these 'cliques?'


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Whoa. There ain't no axis and I ain't a LibDem. Thus does callumny spread!


 A phrase containing the words ''boot'', ''other'' and ''foot'' springs readily to mind.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Do these boards have an editorial line, how is it determined and what is it?


Err, it's all clearly explained in the Posting FAQ: "no racism, gratutious abuse, advertising, trolling, spamming etc etc etc"


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Whoa. There ain't no axis and I ain't a LibDem. Thus does callumny spread!


Indeed - its called full spectrum warfare!


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, it's all clearly explained in the Posting FAQ: "no racism, gratutious abuse, advertising, trolling, spamming etc etc etc"


What about kittens and song lyrics?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Therefore, to develop and maintain a desired editorial line certain posters are encouraged, others discouraged.



Ah right...it becomes clear. By some means, somewhere, someone decides what the "editorial line" is. Then a whole load of dupes turn up and post in good faith on a bulletin board, arguing hither and thither the toss. But some are to be "encouraged" (how? other posters pile in to support their arguments? they're given editorial space? their opponents are harrassed?) whilst others are "discouraged" (How? They're threatened with bans? they're harried and harrassed, insulted and condescended to, expected to argue with three posters at once?)

Anna, I think you've answered our questions. For "editorial line" read "orthodoxy", for "discourage" read "bully and intimidate". Now, if you could have said that a few pages back, it would have saved a lot of bandwidth!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> What about kittens and song lyrics?


And Pooka's 'Gang of Five' with Fanta, lang rabbie, Bob _and_ slazenger moss? And his 'power breakfasts' with Intostella? That *must* be against the FAQ?


----------



## LDR (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Yes I do. Hatboy's gone. He was attacked by a 'clique' (or a 'gang') and left. That looks very like being ''frozen out' to me.



He told me he left (for the time being) because he was bored with Urban at the moment not because he was pressured to leave.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Err, it's all clearly explained in the Posting FAQ: "no racism, gratutious abuse, advertising, trolling, spamming etc etc etc"



Is that not about acceptable behaviour? I think Anna means something else by editorial line, say a particular stance on gentrification - that sort of thing. But I may be wrong


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Ah right...it becomes clear. By some means, somewhere, someone decides what the "editorial line" is. Then a whole load of dupes turn up and post in good faith on a bulletin board, arguing hither and thither the toss. But some are to be "encouraged" (how? other posters pile in to support their arguments? they're given editorial space? their opponents are harrassed?) whilst others are "discouraged" (How? They're threatened with bans? they're harried and harrassed, insulted and condescended to, expected to argue with three posters at once?)
> 
> Anna, I think you've answered our questions. For "editorial line" read "orthodoxy", for "discourage" read "bully and intimidate". Now, if you could have said that a few pages back, it would have saved a lot of bandwidth!


Nah. I like it when you fastasise Big Boy.   

Seriously, as Ed says, the FAQ is the main carrot and stick. It _encourages_ non-sexists, non-racists etc. It _discourages_ the NF. But there's more to u75 than what's written in the FAQ, right?


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Yes I do. Hatboy's gone. He was attacked by a 'clique' (or a 'gang') and left. That looks very like being ''frozen out' to me.



Was Hatboy "attacked"? I didn't get that. Was he attacked more than the way he himself, for example, treated Justin? People were pissed off at his nannyish moderating style and said so.

I commented weeks ago that this was the most heavily and unnecessarily moderated forum on any board I know. And it was. It certainly turned me off posting as much as I had used to


----------



## Bob (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'.



I'm a little confused by this - when you say 'editorial line' do you mean enforcing of the FAQs as your later post implies?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Nah. I like it when you fastasise Big Boy.
> 
> Seriously, as Ed says, the FAQ is the main carrot and stick. It _encourages_ non-sexists, non-racists etc. It _discourages_ the NF. But there's more to u75 than what's written in the FAQ, right?



But you distinguished the "editorial line" to be something different from the FAQ, 




			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> The contents of the Brixton Forum is governed by three things:
> 
> - libel law
> - posting FAQ
> - editorial line




and then suggested that it is achieved by "encouraging some posters and discouraging others". Whereas we would expect enforcement of the FAQ to be straightforward - a warning or two and you're out.

I do rather suspect Anna that what you're expressing here is your own view. That you feel there should be a distinct, political "editorial line", that there should be "encouragement" and "discouragement" of posters on the basis of how well they subscribed to what you felt that line should be - and that includes all the tactics that have been alluded too in this thread. As long as hatboy was on board with your "editorial line" you were his strongest supporter, but should he cross you, then you (and i2s) were more than ready to stick the boot in.

But at the end of the day, we do need to be told. Is there a particular "editorial line", beyond the FAQ, which posters must subscribe to if they wish to post here?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Was Hatboy "attacked"? I didn't get that. Was he attacked more than the way he himself, for example, treated Justin? People were pissed off at his nannyish moderating style and said so.
> 
> I commented weeks ago that this was the most heavily and unnecessarily moderated forum on any board I know. And it was. It certainly turned me off posting as much as I had used to






			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> And I still wonder why Hatboy was attacked. Was it because of his occasional mistakes as a moderator? Or was it because of his editorial line?






			
				Editor said:
			
		

> Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'.
> 
> You clearly liked it, others clearly didn't.
> 
> I hope hatboy comes back in whatever capacity that he feels comfortable with, but I'm very confident that the Brixton forum will survive and grow: after all, it's the posters that matter the most - not the editor and moderators!


So Ed thinks Hatboy was attacked probably for political, as opposed to admin, reasons. Hatboy suffered a political attack and left.

When people are politically attacked they need defending. Or they'll feel angry, betrayed, abused and alone. I don't know how Hatboy felt exactly. But I know a bit about political attacks and their effects.

If people under political attack aren't defended adequately the technical term for what happens to them is called "hanging someone out to dry."


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused by this - when you say 'editorial line' do you mean enforcing of the FAQs as your later post implies?


No. I meant the comment in the context of Anna Key's post.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> So Ed thinks Hatboy was attacked probably for political, as opposed to admin, reasons. Hatboy suffered a political attack and left.
> 
> When people are politically attacked they need defending. Or they'll feel angry, betrayed, abused and alone. I don't know how Hatboy felt exactly. But I know a bit about political attacks and their effects.
> 
> If people under political attack aren't defended adequately the technical term for what happens to them is called "hanging someone out to dry."



But also:




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'.



I read editor's comment to mean "hatboy was attacked for allowing an 'editorial line' to influence his moderating" not "his political views were challanged and so he left" - on the latter basis, there'd be no-one here!

Anyways, hatboy should speak for himself when he wants. You shouldn't keep invoking him Anna like some holy seer


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> So Ed thinks Hatboy was attacked probably for political, as opposed to admin, reasons. Hatboy suffered a political attack and left.


No, I didn't mean that *at all.*

Like I said, hatboy was far more 'hands on' than any other moderator and his pro-active 'editorial line' meant that he actively tried to influence the content here.

Some posters liked that approach, others didn't.

But seeing as he's already explained that he 'got bored' with urban75, why are posters trying to make political capital out of his personal decision?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> As long as hatboy was on board with your "editorial line" you were his strongest supporter, but should he cross you, then you (and i2s) were more than ready to stick the boot in.


I wouldn't put it quite like that - and Intostella can speak for herself - we're not part of some sort of clique don't you know - _I'll argue with anyone with whom I disagree._ Period.

Unless they're large, have a shaven head, are carrying a baseball bat, and are running at me down a dark alley late at night. Then I'll tend to agree with them.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Like I said, hatboy was far more 'hands on' than any other moderator and his pro-active 'editorial line' meant that he actively tried to influence the content here.
> Some posters liked that approach, others didn't.


Aye, there's the rub. On occasions, I certainly didn't like it because I was on the wrong end of it. Yet I am supposed to be part of the same clique.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> But seeing as he's already explained that he 'got bored' with urban75, why are posters trying to make political capital out of his personal decision?



I agree - we should leave hatboy out of this. But I really, really, really would like to know if it is a policy of Urban75 boards to have an "editorial line" which will be promulgated either:

(1) By the moderators.
and/or
(2) Some form of selective, but unspecified, encouragement/discouragement by some unspecified peeps

as Anna indicates?

It is sort of fundamental to what we might imagine these boards to be about and its better that none of us are under any illusions - it's clearly been at the root of a lot of the heat on this and other threads, for example.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> It is sort of fundamental to what we might imagine these boards to be about and its better that none of us are under any illusions - it's clearly been at the root of a lot of the heat on this and other threads, for example.


I've always worked on the assumption that there was such a line and believed I knew what it was - it's nature is the main reason I like these boards - and got hot under the collar about HB leaving, fearing the 'line' might change as a consequence.

How could a chunk of the media - and U75 is a fairly unique chunk of the UK media  - _not_ have an editorial line?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 7, 2004)

cos anyone who abides by the (pretty generous) FAQ rules gets to make up the editorial-and that's too divergent for any 'line' (wot with competing marxist-leninist and liberal cliques)


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I've always worked on the assumption that there was such a line and believed I knew what it was - it's nature is the main reason I like these boards - and got hot under the collar about HB leaving, fearing the 'line' might change as a consequence.
> 
> How could a chunk of the media - and U75 is a fairly unique chunk of the UK media  - _not_ have an editorial line?



I think we differ Anna in viewing a Bulletin Board as being part of the media in the way that a newspaper or television station is.

You posit an editorial line which is political and which goes beyond the fairly minimal ground rules of the FAQ.

The inference must therefore be that there is some form of editorial control to maintain that political line which goies beyond the FAQ.

Who exercises that control and how?

There is something different which can be said. That Urban75 is a meeting place and, like any other meeting place, will have a particular ambience and centre of gravity, in terms of opinion. That centre of gravity will tend to be sustained because likeminded people tend to congregate in the same places. People of differing views may drop in, and be accomodated as long as they're not gratuitously offensive. Otherwise they can engage in, and add to, whatever chat is going on. Over time, the centre of gravity will shift this way and that.

These are two very different models. The first is a rigid, controlling one. The second is a responsive, adaptive one. I can't help but suggest that it's not so surprising that a person coming from a particular part of the political spectrum, like yourself Anna, should favour the former.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> cos anyone who abides by the (pretty generous) FAQ rules gets to make up the editorial-and that's too divergent for any 'line' (wot with competing marxist-leninist and liberal cliques)


Ah but Comrade Pooka, being a top-down sort of a guy, needs an instruction from the Praesidium on the nature of 'the line.'

"What is the correct line Comrade?"

"The correct line is the Will of the Masses Comrade!"


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Ah but Comrade Pooka, being a top-down sort of a guy, needs an instruction from the Praesidium on the nature of 'the line.'
> 
> "What is the correct line Comrade?"
> 
> "The correct line is the Will of the Masses Comrade!"



Eh? You can do better than that Anna - a post that makes some sense in the context would be a start


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> (1) By the moderators.
> and/or
> (2) Some form of selective, but unspecified, encouragement/discouragement by some unspecified peeps
> 
> as Anna indicates?


don't you think you're being a touch paranoid here? A tad twilight zone, perhaps? WHICH 'unspecified peeps' did you have in mind?

_It is sort of fundamental to what we might imagine these boards to be about and its better that none of us are under any illusions - it's clearly been at the root of a lot of the heat on this and other threads, for example_
HUH? these are BBs-they're whatever the totality of postings and posters make them, surely? And illusions about WHAT, precisely? what secret dark plan do you perceive to be afoot?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> There is something different which can be said. That Urban75 is a meeting place and, like any other meeting place, will have a particular ambience and centre of gravity, in terms of opinion. That centre of gravity will tend to be sustained because likeminded people tend to congregate in the same places. People of differing views may drop in, and be accomodated as long as they're not gratuitously offensive. Otherwise they can engage in, and add to, whatever chat is going on. Over time, the centre of gravity will shift this way and that.


I quite like that description. Your 'centre of gravity' is my 'editorial line.' It amuses me how we each view the other as a political authoritarian, yet both deny that we are. I think that's quite funny.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> don't you think you're being a touch paranoid here? A tad twilight zone, perhaps? WHICH 'unspecified peeps' did you have in mind?
> 
> _It is sort of fundamental to what we might imagine these boards to be about and its better that none of us are under any illusions - it's clearly been at the root of a lot of the heat on this and other threads, for example_
> HUH? these are BBs-they're whatever the totality of postings and posters make them, surely? And illusions about WHAT, precisely? what secret dark plan do you perceive to be afoot?



Jezza, I think your interpretation of "editorial line" and my notion of "centre of gravity" are not so different. It is something that is emergent from the mix of people who congregate here, constrained only by the fairly minimal posting FAQ.

But everything Anna has said about the editorial line suggests that it goes beyond the posting FAQ and is somehow policed, by a moderator, through encouragement, discouragement etc. He likens it to the "editorial line" of the Daily Mail or the Guardian.  Newspapers have an editorial line which derives, not from all manner of people wandering in and of newpaper offices like a bulletin board, but one imposed by an editor, and editorial team or even a proprietor. The parrallel points to a top-down process for these boards.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> cos anyone who abides by the (pretty generous) FAQ rules gets to make up the editorial-and that's too divergent for any 'line'


Exactly. There is no pre-defined 'editorial line' that all moderators have to subscribe to.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 7, 2004)

Pooka: a few members of the 'clique' will be exchanging "notes" on "political tracts" in the Albert on Sunday. You around mate?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka: a few members of the 'clique' will be exchanging "notes" on "political tracts" in the Albert on Sunday. You around mate?



Sadly, I'm not around on Sunday - but hopefully on another occasion soon


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Exactly. There is no pre-defined 'editorial line' that all moderators have to subscribe to.



But can there be an "editorial line" on a particular forum, to which posters will be "encouraged" to subscribe?


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> But can there be an "editorial line" on a particular forum, to which posters will be "encouraged" to subscribe?


I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.

If you carry on like this, you're going to force me to use capital letters and bold text to make the point that there is NO pre-defined 'editorial line' on urban75.

Moderators are NOT asked to adhere to any 'editorial line' because there isn't one. I don't "encourage" posters to post in any forums. I don't "encourage" anyone to "subscribe" to anything. I don't start the threads. I don't delete people's comments. There is only the Posting FAQ and that's it.

Got it?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.
> 
> If you carry on like this, you're going to force me to use capital letters and bold text to make the point that there is NO pre-defined 'editorial line' on urban75.
> 
> ...



Thank you. You've comfirmed what has been my understanding for as long as I've been posting here.

Anna, does this coincide with your understanding ie "there is only the posting FAQ's and that's it"?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 7, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Five? Pooka, Fanta, lang rabbie, Bob _and_ slazenger moss?


Some clique!!!   There is the small problem that I honestly have no idea who Pooka, Fanta and Slazenger Moss are. 

I only know who Bob is (and I met him in the real world long before either of us posted here) because of postings reporting his non-availabiltity for a drink due to a wedding reception, from which I wrongly deduced that he must be the bridegroom - having heard of the nuptials from other sources!    I then PM'd him to ask why the hell he was still posting during his honeymoon, and he blew his cover by giving his real name and status as merely a guest.  
As of a month or so ago, he still seems to have thought that I was another Rabbie, but I think he may now have twigged!

As I'm forever posting - this is Lambeth - think cock-up first, conspiracy a long way down the line.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 7, 2004)

Teejay said:
			
		

> I think I owe you an apology too, in that case.






			
				Athos said:
			
		

> Thanks, TeeJay.  That means a lot to me.  And I'm sorry for having antagonised you, in the past, too.



I've already apologised to TeeJay for some offline drunken insults on Saturday on my part  so now belatedly I think I want to apologise to Athos too, here.

His more recent posts seem very reasonable -- I thought I disliked him a little while ago, but I may have got him wrong  -- looks as if, like many people on this thread, he's picked up on a lot of new insights


----------



## Athos (Apr 8, 2004)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I've already apologised to TeeJay for some offline drunken insults on Saturday on my part  so now belatedly I think I want to apologise to Athos too, here.
> 
> His more recent posts seem very reasonable -- I thought I disliked him a little while ago, but I may have got him wrong  -- looks as if, like many people on this thread, he's picked up on a lot of new insights



Cheers William.  I don't blame you if, a little while ago, you thought I was a tit: I was acting like one.  I've learnt a lot, though, and won't make the same mistakes again.  I only hope that those of us who've behaved less than well in this forum haven't done any lasting damage.


----------



## fanta (Apr 8, 2004)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> you'se lot are takin this all a bit too fuckin seriously



Ain't that the fuckin' truth of it!?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Some clique!!!   There is the small problem that I honestly have no idea who Pooka, Fanta and Slazenger Moss are.


 Um, I think you will find that AK was deploying irony to illustrate a point.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 8, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Um, I think you will find that AK was deploying irony to illustrate a point.



I may have been just a bit hypersensitive having just come back from a funeral (and possibly also just a bit drunk as a result of the wake)...

BUT... "ironic" or "humorous" descriptions of other groups of posters as cliques cannot deflect from the legitimate question of whether there is a culture of "groupthink" between yourself and fellow members of the "Tag-Team","Triumvirate", "Gang of Four", "Five Members" or whatever size the community of shared minds/clique/gang is perceived to be.  

I'm always happy to engage in debate and discussion, either on this board or over a drink, but I am genuinely concerned that a groupthink mentality leads to unrealistic assumptions remaining unchallenged, and suggestions being made for action/inaction in real world Brixton that won't achieve benefits for Brixton in either the short or medium term.  As Keynes said "In the long run, we are all dead".

I am not suggesting that those gathered in the Albert are covertly plotting something as calamitous as the Bay of Pigs decision, but I was surprised how relevant I found this Google hit



> *Groupthink*
> 
> Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions.
> 
> ...


Source

Here endeth the sermon!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

Ironically, much of that directly applies to the libdem/small-L liberal contingency.  It is all  right for people to share views as long as they are  _ your_ views.

Urban75 isn't a policy-making  group and here is no actual harm in people putting over whatever views they want (within the posting rules). Even if they happen to agree with some other posters and not with you. .


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 8, 2004)

What LR calls "group think" - very interesting post BTW - I call tribalism.

Anyone who's read Lord of the Flies - or Shakespeare with his fear and hatred of the mob - knows the dangers of tribalism. 

But anyone who's been a member of a disciplined trade union branch - where you've got the employer over a barrel - or a tight residential community where poor people are in and out of each other's houses, knows the benefits of tribalism.

Tribalism allows you to do stuff you can't do on your own.

Liberals will tend to dislike it: their emphasis on individualism will make them sniffy - and fearful - of tribalism.

In some ways u75 is _deeply_ tribal, bringing both benefits and dangers. It's certainly no democracy.   

Here endeth the second lesson!


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 8, 2004)

Buzz sw9 said:
			
		

> tribalism ... somehow needs to be stopped


I thought that AK was saying quite the opposite!

Watch your step from now on. Your card is marked.


----------



## pooka (Apr 8, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I quite like that description. Your 'centre of gravity' is my 'editorial line.' It amuses me how we each view the other as a political authoritarian, yet both deny that we are. I think that's quite funny.




Sorry, Anna, I overlooked this post. Yes there is a degree of convergence and yes we differ on the issue of control. For the reasons I've set out for Jezza I'd suggest 'centre of gravity' connotes an emergent
position, 'editorial line' indicates an imposition, unless we had formal, cooperative decision making (perish the thought in this context)




			
				lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Some clique!!! There is the small problem that I honestly have no idea who Pooka, Fanta and Slazenger Moss are.



Indeed. I had thought I'd a good idea who you were from your sense of humour and particular geographic references, so I raised it with the Putative Lang Rabbie (PLR). The exchange went:

Me: Does 'lang rabbie' have any significance for you?
PLR: Erm, 'My love is like a red, red rose' ?
Me: (Raised eyebrow) New Labour? You hide it well!
PLR: Erm, or ' Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
Nursing her wrath to keep it warm'
Me:   Intostella?
PLR: Erm, pint of bitter please?
Assembled company:   
Me:   

Swapping notes on political tracts is one thing, muttering passwords is another; I fear the flapping of Dr Jazzz's white coat  

Groupthink: We had a 'discussion' of that on last year's 'Central Brixton to Yuppies' thread, with much the same outcome. I don't have a problem with Groupthink in itself, if people want to limit themselves in that way, then it's up to them. It's when it leads to the distinction between 'in-groups' and 'out-groups' that it becomes dangerous - and the notion that it's ok to behave towards out-groups in ways that would be unthinkable towards ingroups. I remember giving the example of tabloid attitudes to immigrants as an example.




			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> What LR calls "group think" - very interesting post BTW - I call tribalism.
> 
> Anyone who's read Lord of the Flies - or Shakespeare with his fear and hatred of the mob - knows the dangers of tribalism.
> 
> ...



Yet further convergence - brilliant! I know when I've suggested in the past that there is a tribalism to Urban75-BrixtonForum, especially in respect of regeneration/gentrification issues I've been rounded on.


Tribalism as you say can be positive - it can give peole a sense of identity, of value, of belonging.But don't think we need to resort to literature to see damage that tribalism so often leads to. From Bosnia to Rwanda, or from the Shankill to the football terraces on a Saturday afternoon, the bloodied victims of tribalism can be found.

It's interesting you allude to Trades Unionism. I'd argue there is a big difference between collectivism, which recognises the individual and the group good, an the extent to which we are part one of another, and the importance of justice (on the one hand) and tribalism (on the other). In fact collective action can extend across tribal boundaries.

But you're right in that tribalism has often been exploited by union leaderships, and apparachnicks, to lead their memberships into disastrous outcomes. In that context, tribalism is the refuge of the scoundrel. 

I'd be sorry if tribalism became a mechanism for exclusion on these boards.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Gathering her brows like gathering storm,
> Nursing her wrath to keep it warm'


 I may be many things, pookingtons, but ''sulky and sullen'' are far wide of the mark.   

There is a big difference between me being a grudge-bearer, as you imply, and simply trying to_ keep you honest_.


----------



## newbie (Apr 8, 2004)

thing about tribes is that they need an identifiable 'other', or enemy, to keep them cohesive.  Groupthink works in the same way.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 8, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Indeed. I had thought I'd a good idea who you were from your sense of humour and particular geographic references, so I raised it with the Putative Lang Rabbie (PLR). The exchange went:
> 
> Me: Does 'lang rabbie' have any significance for you?
> PLR: Erm, 'My love is like a red, red rose' ?
> ...



LOL  

A Brixton _Doppelgänger_, now that could be quite alarming!

On the other hand, if PLR has that level of recall of the immortal Rabbie maybe I should invite him(?) + guest for Burns Night next year to recite all eight stanzas of Ode to a Haggis.   I had to resort to a note concealed under the broccoli on the charger when I last played host!


----------



## pooka (Apr 8, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I last plaid host!



Well, you certainly take your Tartan malarky seriously 




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between me being a grudge-bearer, as you imply, and simply trying to keep you honest.



I'll do my utmost to make the distinction   




			
				newbie said:
			
		

> thing about tribes is that they need an identifiable 'other', or enemy, to keep them cohesive. Groupthink works in the same way



Exactly so. Oh goodness, I sense a clique self assembling!


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 8, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Well, you certainly take your Tartan malarky seriously



no pun intended (even if it was quite a good one, for me!)


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I may be many things, pookingtons


'Pookingtons?'!!!!    

May I congratulate you on your _textbook example _ of Rule One of the 'win arguments online' article:



> 1. Get friendly
> Always refer to your opponent by his/her first name. Your messages will seem warm and friendly, despite the rabid ferocity of their content. After a few exchanges, begin to use a corruption of your opponent's name - begin with "William", then change to "Billy", then change to something like "Billy-Boy".


  


http://www.urban75.com/Mag/argument.html


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 8, 2004)

I violently disagree with you, er, Edy.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 8, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> 'Pookingtons?'!!!!
> 
> May I congratulate you on your _textbook example _ of Rule One of the 'win arguments online' article:
> 
> ...



The most textbook example of the 'win arguments online' I've ever seen was Pickmans Model glorious invoking of rule 4 on this thread.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 8, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> thing about tribes is that they need an identifiable 'other', or enemy, to keep them cohesive.  Groupthink works in the same way.


There's a certain nightclub owner I can think of who fulfilled this function _to the letter._


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> The most textbook example of the 'win arguments online' I've ever seen was Pickmans Model glorious invoking of rule 4 on this thread.


 He's such an adept that they even named  rule number 2 after him.   

LOL@AK


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I violently disagree with you, er, Edy.


Edy_poos_, surely?


----------



## Bob (Apr 8, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> thing about tribes is that they need an identifiable 'other', or enemy, to keep them cohesive.  Groupthink works in the same way.



I was just about to post agreeing with you before I realised that this thread has taken a distinct turn for the nicer without any common enemy at all...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob said:
			
		

> I was just about to post agreeing with you before I realised that this thread has taken a distinct turn for the nicer without any common enemy at all...


 Hiya Bobby! 

Hey, who are you calling common, newbie-ey?


----------



## Bob (Apr 8, 2004)

Aye/I  

Ps you too couldn't find a short form of newbie... I thought maybe newbish? new? newb?


----------



## Domski (Apr 8, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hiya Bobby!
> 
> Hey, who are you calling common, newbie-ey?



Should this thread also perhaps form a pharaphrased textbook for the explanation of _alleged_ online cliques as discussed by _apparent_ opposing parties in said online cliques


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Edy_poos_, surely?


Easy, Stellsy Wellsy!

(pub tonight?)


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

*Yo, Domskiski*




			
				Domski said:
			
		

> Should this thread also perhaps form a pharaphrased textbook for the explanation of _alleged_ online cliques as discussed by _apparent_ opposing parties in said online cliques


 I _think_ I understood that.   Of course we are all one big happy clique, really.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 8, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Easy, Stellsy Wellsy!
> 
> (pub tonight?)


As long as it doesn't degenerate to Smellsy.   

I dare say we'll be along after our cosy RR estate clique gathering up t'town 'all. (I hope to god it doesn't go on till 11  ).


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 8, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I dare say we'll be along after our cosy RR estate clique gathering up t'town 'all. (I hope to god it doesn't go on till 11  ).


Tell that to Lord Domey - he's probably chairing it. Or better still, give him a   sharp kick under the table should anyone start waffling about their holidays.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 9, 2004)

As Im hung over(exchanging political tracts with Anna and Intostella last night down the Albert  ) Ive had to skim these last pages since being on the boards a week ago.I do notice that my earlier posts about a supposed "clique" on the boards have been taken up-belatedly.Im not up to serious argument today.

  Has has been said by several posters on this thread my posting style apparently does not put people "off".It doesnt neccessarily get a reply either.pk still hasnt replied to my posts.I agree with Mr BC hes a wind up merchant.I also agree with Mr BC posts on the issue of people getting supposedly put up from posting here.And I believe Mr BC and myself are on opposite ends of the political spectrum  .Detective Boy has made some good posts on the issue as well.

  Can I ask that posters please dont try and continue debates with me through pms as I (a)havent the time and (b) think my posts should be replied to on the boards.

  My early posts on the issue of a "clique" didnt elicit a reponse though the issue was in full swing later on in this thread.

  I agree with Annas post using EP Thompson(thanks for the link Ill check it out later).

  If people like me and the "gang of four" have found ourselves a home on U75 its been by chance rather and design-no "entryism" involved.I make no apologies for the opinions I express here.Whilst their is no editorial line on these boards you only have to look at U75 as a whole to see its a left of centre site with sections on drugs,activism etc.

   This is why I agree with Annas post using EP Thompson.Space is not normally given to the likes of me.

   I remember talking to HB and Anna where both have stated that their concerns of what is happening to Brixton are widely held by people in the area-who dont necessarily have access to the net to express their views.

  As to comments from Lang Rabbie (and Sufila made similar observations) that posts here can sound like a minor public school debate-Ill have to hold my hands up here as a product of that system  .(free place my family werent toffs).If you want an example of "Groupthink" or constraining of debate to an "intellectual grooming fest" you should try a few years at a place like that.

  Makes the complaints of people getting put off from posting here seem pretty feeble to me.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 10, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, some of our regular posters remind me of nothing so much as certain members of the then Federation of Conservative Students, the arrogant products of minor public schools who are now sadly mostly overpaid barristers.   They had an immense sense of self-importance and would regularly heckle inexperienced speakers.



You know, I used to like the Lib Dems too.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> If that's because they feel _intellectually_ intimidated, tough.
> 
> The level of debate in this forum is, in my opinion, higher than, for example, the general forum, where the debate often centres on such fascintaing subjects as whether you fancy any other posters
> 
> It's certainly more rough and tumble here.  People can't get away with sophistry.  That's a good thing.



  Spot on


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2004)

And a previous post (by Pooka I think)seemed to appear to suggest that the Gang of Four were formers members of a political party.

   I would like to point out that Ive never been a member of a political party-especially not the Labour Party-god forbid.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> *   For what it's worth, my main gripe with several regular posters is their apparent inability to recognise that "conservatism" does not just come from a right-wing perspective. (I've seen too many nostalgist comments relating to some idealised socialist/communitarian Lambeth.   I don't believe ever existed for the poorest and most deprived in this borough, and sadly it certainly isn't a sustainable model for the future in globalised Nu-Labour Britain.   At times, it has reminded me of nothing so much as my hosts in East Berlin reminiscing about the glories of the DDR a few years after the fall of the wall)



 Glad to see you come back on the boards on this but took to page18 post 437 on "Groupthink" to come back to this issue.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> I'm always happy to engage in debate and discussion, either on this board or over a drink, but I am genuinely concerned that a groupthink mentality leads to unrealistic assumptions remaining unchallenged, and suggestions being made for action/inaction in real world Brixton that won't achieve benefits for Brixton in either the short or medium term.  As Keynes said "In the long run, we are all dead".
> 
> I was surprised how relevant I found this Google hit
> 
> ...



   If you are going to use social pyschology you could allow for the well known fact that ones one opinions can cloud scientific judgement.

   What it appears to me you are doing is using a theory you found on google to back up your own particular disagreements with some posters on this site.Therefore you are not being objective in a scientific sense.You are using pyschological theories in a "pop pyschological" form.

  As you said on post90 your main gripe with several posters was that their views were not "a sustainable model for the future in a globalised Nu-Labour Britain".An amalgamation of social /pyschological research and middle of the road politics is a trait of New Labour thinking.Ive just been reading a Demos article on Community and its full of it.I think that pragmatically one may have to work within it and use bits of it that are progressive-I think however that does not mean I have to agree with it- especially on a anonymous website.(though I think I gave one of my Councillors a shock recently quoting Foucault-might have made a mistake their as I normally keep it to myself  )Nor does it mean that I dont want a larger change.

   If I get it right Groupthink is about conformity in an Orwellian sense.Sounds to me that I could turn it around and quote back Annas earlier post using EP Thompson.It not people like me who are suffering from Groupthink.The reverse is the case considering that we are as you say living in a "globalised Nu Labour world".The posts of people like me are not part of that form of Groupthink.Thats why they appear as not "sustainable".Probably some of my views are not "realistic"-that does not mean they are wrong.

  See here on Groupthink:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/groupthink.htm

   Aspects of Groupthink is (from above article):

   Respect for Authority
   Conformance
   Reticence

   I certainly dont see this in the posts here  .A problem of using a theory such as this as a tool of political analysis is that IMO these social psyschological theories are limited in scope.The "Bay of Pigs" fiasco was due to deepseated ideological disagreements not just to bad decision making.

  Also Groupthink works on the assumption that there is a different "good" form of decision making-which one can learn.This is deterministic-more accurate that there are many different types of "groups".

  It seems to me these theories (normally applied to business initially) are connected with the supposed Post Fordist era of management we now live in.Modern Capitalism no longer needs top down hierarchies as these no longer produce enough profit.So lo and behold social scientists come up with theories of Groupthink  .


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> If you are going to use social pyschology you could allow for the well known fact that ones one opinions can cloud scientific judgement.



FFS - I was making no scientific judgement - I was drawing an analogy!




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> What it appears to me you are doing is using a theory you found on google to back up your own particular disagreements with some posters on this site.Therefore you are not being objective in a scientific sense.You are using pyschological theories in a "pop pyschological" form.



No    I recalled a theory that was passably interesting when looked at from the micro-economic perspective of games theory and "rational" decision making in my University career (over fifteen years ago).  I Googled for it, expecting groupthink to have now been comprehensively rejected as a theory.  It hasn't been, and I was genuinely surprised by the relevance of some of the symptoms described in the cited article to certain behaviours in this virtual group!

Edited to add - apologies to everyone else bored by this stuff that I have to put this rebuttal on the the thread because Gramsci is too grand to read PMs


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> You know, I used to like the Lib Dems too.



I wouldn't include Mr BC amongst the "hecklers of inexperienced posters".

PS Why have so many more people (in both posts and PMs) been more interested in the glancing references to "overpaid barristers" and "minor public schools" rather than to the "self importance" and "heckling" of some of my rather unpleasant university contemporaries  

Ah the wonders of the English class system


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 12, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> FFS - I was making no scientific judgement - I was drawing an analogy!


In other words: "Dammit! Holed below the waterline!"....





> Edited to add - apologies to everyone else bored by this stuff that I have to put this rebuttal on the the thread because Gramsci is too grand to read PMs


..."And so I'm going to launch a personal attack on gramsci."

Let's see... You can post attacks on him_ but he is supposed to respond 
 in PMs?_

LOL


----------



## pooka (Apr 12, 2004)

Hmmm... I think I've been admonished on this thread for calling people smug....how's this look?




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Mr BC
> If that's because they feel intellectually intimidated, tough.
> 
> Spot on



Given that the arguement for an adjudicated and enforced 'editorial line', over and beyond what the FAQ's say,  has been comprehensively lost on this thread, it looks both smug _and _ misplaced, I'd say  

Gramsci, I'm not sure where I gained the impression that your shared a party political provenance with other posters - on here or in the real world - but my apologies if you feel slandered!  

Regarding the dissenting voice; see this response.

Group Think. Like I said, we've talked about this before, over a year ago. Its a perfectly valid model for what sometimes happens here. I don't think the theory comes out of a business context (wasn't the most famous experiment the one with role-play jailors?) - indeed your suggestion that it argues against hierachies is misplaced. The whole point about Group Think is that the Group polices their own thoughts without any authority figures.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 12, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Respect for Authority
> Conformance
> Reticence


An entirely accurate sumation of Intostella's character.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 12, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> An entirely accurate sumation of Intostella's character.


Yeth, mathter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> An entirely accurate sumation of Intostella's character.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 12, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> The whole point about Group Think is that the Group polices their own thoughts without any authority figures.


So 'Group Think' is a form of anarchism? A sort of Brixton Nick without a Commander?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 12, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Regarding the dissenting voice; see this response.


ROFL!! Dear Pooka. You accuse other people of smugness and then reference your earlier post in terms that suggest it was a shining beacon of truth and clarity. 

Please stop! The stools in this web caff are too high and the floor very hard. I'll do meself a serious mischief.


----------



## pooka (Apr 12, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> ROFL!! Dear Pooka. You accuse other people of smugness and then reference your earlier post in terms that suggest it was a shining beacon of truth and clarity.



Nope - just don't like repeating myself, but sometimes......well, you know how it is


----------



## hatboy (Apr 12, 2004)

What the fuck are you all on about. Jeez!  

PS I'm not here.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 12, 2004)

LOL @ Hatboy


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> FFS - I was making no scientific judgement - I was drawing an analogy!
> 
> It hasn't been, and I was genuinely surprised by the relevance of some of the symptoms described in the cited article to certain behaviours in this virtual group!
> 
> Edited to add - apologies to everyone else bored by this stuff that I have to put this rebuttal on the the thread because Gramsci is too grand to read PMs



   Im not to grand to answer pms-but as I said I dont want to continue debates in pms.

   I did not bring up the issue of cliques/Groupthink-you did in posts 90 and 437 of this thread.I left the issue alone after you tried to take it to pms and only resumed it after your post 437.

  I dont think you can cite social pyschological theory you learnt at Uni as applicable to certain behaviours here and then fall back on the its only an "analogy" argument when challenged.Using scientific jargon is an attempt to credence to your own views of the dynamics here.

  Its a common technique to undermine people one disagrees with to apply "symptoms" of some supposed "pyschological" disorder to them.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2004)

As I have nothing to hide, here is the PM that I sent Gramsci.   As I wrote in a one line post at the time (and I have no intention of hunting out the number), my reason for PMing a response was not wanting to further derail the thread, *when the main aim of a majority of posters at that time was still to encourage Hatboy to stay as moderator of the Brixton forum.* 

Since then this thread has been well and truly derailed!!!

I didn't consider it an invitation to further debate - others might 




			
				lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Gramsci said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2004)

you like hair-splitting, lang.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2004)

Also,Lang Rabbie, as I suggested as someone involved in this Group dynamic you cannot be an unbiased observer of how it works.

  Basically what you are doing is mixing up political disagreements with pyschology-trying to use it as an argument.

  As you said in your earlier post 90 you think that the Gof4 are unrealistic in their analysis of what is happening to the area which result in wrong,possibly detrimental,proposals for what should happen to Brixton.

  Therefore in your mind an incorrect decision making process has occured can be explained by Groupthink.

  A critique of "Groupthink" as a theory is that the examples are always post a "poor" decision being made.The researcher looks at "symptoms" after a "poor" decision had been made.Also their are no definite criteria of what Groupthink is to test it.

  All this makes it to easy IMO to use it as a weapon in arguments.

   In actual fact as Mr BC points out the quality of debate in Brixton board can be high.Why say the Gof4 are the only members of the "Group".One could take all the regular posters here as part of a "group".Seems like healthy disagreements here to me not Groupthink.

  And Groupthink is about decision making processes in predominately groups with an element of hierarchy(ie JFK and the Bay of Pigs).


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> I dont think you can cite social psychological theory you learnt at Uni as applicable to certain behaviours here and then fall back on the its only an "analogy" argument when challenged.  Using scientific jargon is an attempt to [add] credence to your own views of the dynamics here.



I really do not think that "groupthink" can be described as scientific jargon.
The text that I quoted allowed readers to decide for themselves whether they saw any parrallels.




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> Its a common technique to undermine people one disagrees with to apply "symptoms" of some supposed "pyschological" disorder to them.



For the avoidance of doubt - "symptoms" as used by social psychologists, group theorists, whatever is a (perhaps unfortunate) metaphor, along with "pathology" etc. etc.  

Neither the original theorists, nor I, are suggesting that groupthink reflects either psychiatric malaise (or a personality disorder) in any of those involved in the process.   

And I regard it as a personal slur that you should think that I would stoop to such a comparison.  (I cannot claim to have more than an inkling of the range of mental health problems faced by so many people in Brixton and Lambeth as a whole, but in most public forums [in my real world guise] I try to ensure that their needs are considered, rather than the presence of the mentally ill being regarded as the problem, as is still too, too common.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 12, 2004)

arioch! there's a new candidate for humourless puritan! /\


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> arioch! there's a new candidate for humourless puritan! /\



Sorry.   I don't normally disagree with Gramsci, but on this one it seems to be turning into a grudge-match.

[Are we at post 500 on this miserable thread yet?]


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2004)

Well Ive been looking into Groupthink on google to find out more and its treated as a scientific theory that need to be tested or rebutted.

  The implication of using Groupthink was that those defined in the group were making poor decisions for pyschological reason that can be rectified.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2004)

Groupthink a scientific theory see here:

http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/group/gthink.htm


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> All I was saying was that I perceived a legitimate problem, but that HB as moderator cannot be expected to deal with this (Volunteers to virtually wrestle IntoStella to the virtual floor when in confrontational mode, anyone?)


 In your dreams, buddy. 

Seriously, I somehow missed this the first time around. I am  reminded of pooka once suggesting that miss fx should be gagged. 

You cannot seriously suggest that I have behaved more badly than everyone else, so why I am singled out for your  fantasies of forced physical restraint?  

Interesting, that, isn't it? I don't see you suggesting that pk, for example,  be wrestled to the ground.    

Are you trying to suggest that I am to blame for hatboy's departure?  I sincerely hope that you aren't. 

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good kick in the crutch, eh, rabbie?   




			
				lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Sorry.   I don't normally disagree with Gramsci, but on this one it seems to be turning into a grudge-match.


Smell the hypocrisy.


----------



## fanta (Apr 13, 2004)

LOL!   

The more silly this thread gets the funnier it is.

I wouldn't mind being singled out for some shabby forced restraint!

Hahahahahaha!


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 13, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> fantasies of forced physical restraint



[LOL]  

... but then again, there is a lot of empty space in the Town Hall basement, for me to take up a new role as Torquemada to the most holy Inquisition of the Tory-Lib Dem administration


----------



## newbie (Apr 13, 2004)

sadly that one wasn't in the exhibition of his works I saw the other week.

peculiarly apt for this thread tho'.


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Seriously, I somehow missed this the first time around. I am  reminded of pooka once suggesting that miss fx should be gagged.



The term was "Muzzle". I was graphically suggesting that if miss fx turned up at a public meeting and repeated her line about "waiting in line for allocation of public housing is alright for bread-heads (sic) but not for us creative people in Rushcroft Road", then it might not do your cause much good and perhaps she would be better muzzled.

I remember at the time you chose to impune a sexist motive, which simply wasn't there - and now your at it again!




			
				Intostella said:
			
		

> You cannot seriously suggest that I have behaved more badly than everyone else



Don't know if you have behaved 'worst', but you probably are the most aggressive, regular poster on Brixton. I assumed it was a reputation you rather revelled in?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2004)

It would be even funnier if everyone didn't take it so seriously...



It seems a little misguided to try and apportion blame for this sorry state of affairs on any particular individual or group - it's far more of a combination of factors that that.

But it's also fairly clear, as we enter round 12 of this thread confrontation,  that there may just be a pattern developing here - overdetailed pernickity posts, aggressive 'wounded' defences, the same basic issues being dragged over with no sign of a resolution or letting the thread drop with some grace. Gawd help any moderator who tries to interfere with the whole sorry process of having the last word...

As far as I can see it the only person who's really changed their approach on this thread has been Hatboy.  Good for him.


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> over with no sign of a resolution or letting the thread drop with some grace.



I agree... there has earlier been some useful clarification of peoples' differeing perceptions of how these boards work, but now its just a slagging match. Time to ditch it.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 13, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> The more silly this thread gets the funnier it is.





> Gawd help any moderator who tries to interfere with the whole sorry process of having the last word...





> its just a slagging match. Time to ditch it.


LOL!

All these people lamenting this thread's existence... but posting.... and posting... and posting.

Like vicars leafing through pornographic magazines exclaiming "Disgusting!" at every image... but turning the pages - and carefully examining each picture - with ever increasing speed.

This thread is disgusting. DISGUSTING! 

p.s. There's nothing wrong with this thread at all. Why can't people have a bit of an on-line row? What possible harm is it doing, except to poor old Mike's long-suffering bandwidth?

Or is it "putting people off?"

LOL!


----------



## tarannau (Apr 13, 2004)

Bag of utter tosh. I've never said I find it disgusting, or even particularly objectionable. Quite entertaining in a car crash kind of way if I'm honest.


Still don't think it's particularly productive mind, nor conducive to a good atmosphere for new posters on the Brixton forums. But never mind me eh. Carry on (mostly) talking and arguing between yourself. As usual.

I suspect that there isn't ever going to be a 'Eureka' moment when an argumentative poster  wins the point-scoring debate with a ray of truth. Don't kid yourself - the repeated actions of certain individuals on this thread are far more illuminating that the level of discourse.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Don't know if you have behaved 'worst', but you probably are the most aggressive, regular poster on Brixton. I assumed it was a reputation you rather revelled in?



I think the term 'aggressive' is misplaced and unfair.  IS, like many others, is vigorous and robust (in her posts anyway - I couldn't possibly comment on any other aspect of her personality).  But why are we scared of this?  I also wonder whether IS gets so much grief for her supposedly 'aggressive' style because she is often so forensic in her deconstruction of other people's arguments?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> I think the term 'aggressive' is misplaced and unfair.


We haven't had those other old faves --  ''shrill" and "strident" --  yet. 





> I also wonder whether IS gets so much grief for her supposedly 'aggressive' style because she is often so forensic in her deconstruction of other people's arguments?


 That is probably the most flattering thing anyone has ever said about me on urban75. Thank you.  



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> The term was "Muzzle". I was graphically suggesting that if miss fx turned up at a public meeting and repeated her line about "waiting in line for allocation of public housing is alright for bread-heads (sic) but not for us creative people in Rushcroft Road", then it might not do your cause much good and perhaps she would be better muzzled.


 Thank you, pooka. What you actually said was considerably worse than what I remembered. An outspoken woman comes onto the Brixton boards as a new poster and you call for her to be muzzled. I _honestly_ don't think you would have said that about a man. You assumed that missfx is so dumb that she would say the same things in a council meeting as she would say on u75. And you likened her to a vicious dog by calling for her to be muzzled. 

Rabbie -- I always pictured the Town hall under your lot as being more like  this.


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I _honestly_ don't think you would have said that about a man. You assumed that missfx is so dumb that she would say the same things in a council meeting as she would say on u75.



I'm sure you do honestly think, but I _know_ I would use exactly the same term were a man to come out with such an outrageous sentiment. 

I certainly didn't think miss fx to be dumb, but I thought her probably honest (most people are).


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 13, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> I think the term 'aggressive' is misplaced and unfair.  IS, like many others, is vigorous and robust (in her posts anyway - I couldn't possibly comment on any other aspect of her personality).  *But why are we scared of this?*


Some of us aren't.   



			
				Mr BC said:
			
		

> I also wonder whether IS gets so much grief for her supposedly 'aggressive' style because she is often so forensic in her deconstruction of other people's arguments?


But many can't stand their opinions being contradicted or, worse still, illustrated with forensic skill to be wrong, stupid or cruel. It makes them hysterical.

So they may launch amusing, bleating, counter-attacks or pre-emptive strikes on those perceived as a threat:

"Gang of Four!"

"Putting posters off the Brixton Forum!" 

"Politicising issues which are non-political!" 

and my personal favourite 

"We must be fun and light-hearted!"

_Javol ubergrupenhumourfurer!_


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 13, 2004)

and - let's be honest - because IS is an assertive woman who takes no shit (as well as being rather good at this online debate thingy) ansd some could always have a prob there. _Their_ prob.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 13, 2004)

Nail

Head

Hit!


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 13, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> So they may launch amusing, bleating, counter-attacks or pre-emptive strikes on those perceived as a threat:
> 
> "Gang of Four!"
> 
> ...



"Putting posters off" is the most dangerous argument because, in essence, it means nothing more than ,"I should be able to write any old bollocks, no matter how trite and/or facile and/or ill-informed, but don't contradict me and/or prove I'm talking through my backside, because it upsets me/is aggressive/puts people off".

Some people might also say that (many of) the very ones who latterly made the 'putting people off' point had, for 2 days beforehand, ganged up on Hatboy and forced him out.


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> "Putting posters off" is the most dangerous argument because, in essence, it means nothing more than ,"I should be able to write any old bollocks, no matter how trite and/or facile and/or ill-informed, but don't contradict me and/or prove I'm talking through my backside, because it upsets me/is aggressive/puts people off".
> 
> Some people might also say that (many of) the very ones who latterly made the 'putting people off' point had, for 2 days beforehand, ganged up on Hatboy and forced him out.



Oh lordy, this waving hatboy about like some holy relic is becoming a bit unseemly! hatboy stated his reasons for leaving as (1) failure of fellow posters to challenge pk's alleged racism and (2) because the forum had become more 'mainstream'.

Well...(1) few of those now setting themselves up as hatboy's champions piled in to condemn pk and (2) if the 'centre of gravity' becomes more, or less, mainstream then so be it. With only the FAQ's for guidance, thats the way it is and we must each make our choices. Unless of course, there is some mecchanism for 'putting people off', to maintain the tribal purity of this Forum.
Anna Key has already said that he wants to see people 'discouraged' from posting in order to support an 'editorial line' that goes 'beyond the FAQ's'. Isn't that the same as putting people off?

In that statement, Anna conceded the arguement. The rest is just reinforcing 'GroupThink'. You're welcome to it.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna Key has already said that he wants to see people 'discouraged' from posting in order to support an 'editorial line' that goes 'beyond the FAQ's'.


Where does he do that?


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Oh lordy, this waving hatboy about like some holy relic is becoming a bit unseemly! hatboy stated his reasons for leaving as (1) failure of fellow posters to challenge pk's alleged racism and (2) because the forum had become more 'mainstream'.


and because he felt the need to move on, to be fair.


> Well...(1) few of those now setting themselves up as hatboy's champions piled in to condemn pk


who ON EARTH is setting themselves up as "HBs champions"??? C'mon, NAME THEM!!!
and if you look at the start of this thread, quite a few people did have a go at PK.


> Unless of course, there is some mecchanism for 'putting people off', to maintain the tribal purity of this Forum.


WTF??? are we in the twilight zone here, or illuminati city? 
and this forum is, to put it mildly, disputatious, so WHAT tribal purity do you alone see here?? There is about as much unanimity here as at an Old Labour special conference-it's only a BB, ffs!!! 


> Anna Key has already said that he wants to see people 'discouraged' from posting in order to support an 'editorial line' that goes 'beyond the FAQ's'. Isn't that the same as putting people off?


well, that's a bleedin' new one on me too, squire. And to Anna too, I'm pretty sure!
Are we reading the same thread here? or in the same dimension?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna Key has already said that he wants to see people 'discouraged' from posting in order to support an 'editorial line' that goes 'beyond the FAQ's'. Isn't that the same as putting people off?
> 
> In that statement, Anna conceded the arguement


 I just read this  bit to Anna Key over the phone. How he laughed.


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Where does he do that?



Here (Post 397):



			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> Editorial content is provided by the posters. Therefore, to develop and maintain a desired editorial line certain posters are encouraged, others discouraged.



Refuted here (Post 426): 



			
				editor said:
			
		

> Exactly. There is no pre-defined 'editorial line'



And here (Post 430)



			
				editor said:
			
		

> Moderators are NOT asked to adhere to any 'editorial line' because there isn't one. I don't "encourage" posters to post in any forums. I don't "encourage" anyone to "subscribe" to anything. I don't start the threads. I don't delete people's comments. There is only the Posting FAQ and that's it.



Needless to say, when the question was put to Anna (post 431)




			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Anna, does this coincide with your understanding ie "there is only the posting FAQ's and that's it"?



answer came there, none; just a load of diversionary flummery about liberal cliques. 





			
				Intostella said:
			
		

> I just read this bit to Anna Key over the phone.



Blimey - it's only a bulletin board y'know!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

AK was not in any way stating that there _should be_ an editorial line and/or that_ anyone _should be discouraged.  Where do you get these ideas from? 

As I understand it, (we haven't yet  upgraded our version of GroupThink to v4.0, which features telepathy as standard, and Anna's gorn down the Beehive), what he was suggesting was that, even though there is OBVIOUSLY no such thing as a written down or otherwise conscious editorial line, a sort of liberal (small L) concensus exists that can discourage left-wing thought as much as right-wing. 

So it's the liberal orthodoxy that is discouraging to  (some)  posters!


----------



## hatboy (Apr 13, 2004)

Jesus Christ. You lot deserve eachother!

Yeah, I tried to scare away people I thought were idiots. Yeah I tried to make it more representative here.  It never totally worked. It's the internet, not Brixton, not life.

Bollocks to it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2004)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2004)

it's not a matter of life & death, it's more important than that!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> it's not a matter of life & death, it's more important than that!


   




.............


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> .............


more 






than niven.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 13, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>


Isn't that Spud Murphy III?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I want to examine the 'clique' accusation a little more.
> 
> I come on these boards partly to witness - and participate in - the clash of 'heretical opinion' between opposing political positions (or 'cliques' if you prefer). I value witnessing argument between, say, Red Jezza and pooka or Intostella and Fanta or Mr BC and Bob.
> 
> ...



  I believe the above is the best post by Anna on this thread and is the relevant summation of his views on "editorial line" etc.(page15 post367 for full post with link to discussion on EP Thompson).Its also a post I agree with wholeheartdly.Thought Id put it up as Annas views are being distorted over the last few pages.

  I also agree with Anna that though people post up saying how terrible this thread is they still read it  .

  I also agree with Mr BCs posts on the subject.Better watch out Mr BC or you might be accussed of putting people off .

  I do note that the good points in MrBCs posts for example are often not commented on.(Except of course IS noticing Mr BC flattering praise of her posts  ).

  My interventions on this thread have been small(I do have a low post count anyway).I have dissected pk original post-with no seriuos reply by him.I,as the issue of Groupthink came up,looked it theoretically and found that my posts on it have not really been followed up in a serious fashion.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 13, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ. You lot deserve eachother!
> 
> Yeah, I tried to scare away people I thought were idiots. Yeah I tried to make it more representative here.  It never totally worked. It's the internet, not Brixton, not life.
> 
> Bollocks to it.


ooh, give us a hug!


----------



## pooka (Apr 13, 2004)

Oooh - Intostella, you are a one!

Gramsci: Do you have ambitions to be Boswell to Anna's Johnson?  
 Perhaps you haven't time to read every post on this thread - understandable! - but Anna's disingenous Thompson post was answered. 

Viz purporting to be part of some victimised and excluded minority opinion cannot be used to justify operating exclusionary tactics here - be they Anna's 'encouraging some/discouraging others' or hatboys 'Yeah, I tried to scare away people I thought were idiots' (idiots may have been people with a poor grasp of algebra or iambic pentameters but, more likely, failed to confess the one true 'editorial line').

There's a limit to how many times we can ask editor to reiterate that there is the FAQ and nothing else; no 'editorial line', for the succour of self styled dissenting voices or otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Gramsci: Do you have ambitions to be Boswell to Anna's Johnson?


----------



## aurora green (Apr 13, 2004)

pooka  said:
			
		

> iambic pentameters..



 

Hmm... all I can say is that I find myself subscribed to two lengthy threads at present, this, and the life in the single lane thing. 
And I'm not sure why I keep returning to either, 

Both I find equally unfathomable, but strangely similar in some ways. 



Hatboy, I so understand you now.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

*Forensic* 

1) Relating to denoting the scientific investigation of crime
2) Belonging to or used in a court of law

_(Source: The Penguin English Dictionary)_ 


_*posted by intostella on this thread:*_ 

_ Have you only got the one record? Tell you what, next time I go down Dr Barnardos I'll get you some new ones . You want to believe most people hold the same view as domski and you but the evidence is piling up that in fact, you are in a minority. The ''elitist clique'' only exists in your pitifully stunted imagination._ 


Blimey - close my eyes and it could be Quincy speaking. Dispassionate, factual  and entirely objective eh...




Sorry to interrupt the love in and mutual back-slapping, but that comment seemed far too ridiculous to let go. Forensic my arse. 

What hasn't changed is that there are the same faces on this thread, saying roughly the same things at great length. You protest too hard, yet none - bar Hatboy - has shown a jot of regret, changed their positioning or admitted any responsibility for the present state of affairs.  How's it going to change?

I still think that it's not  conducive to a good atmosphere for new posters on this forum. Maybe a wave of new posters will prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect all I'll see is the usual suspects bickering over their reputations.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I still think that it's not  conducive to a good atmosphere for new posters on this forum. Maybe a wave of new posters will prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect all I'll see is the usual suspects bickering over their reputations.



I agree.  But then..

A few pages back someone said something to the effect that this forum is dominated by white posters.  I don't know for sure if this is true, but I'd be surprised if it's not.   That's somewhat more damming than being dominated by the well educated or by the middle classes.  Because social exclusion begins at home, and a forum that's perceived as by/for whites, particularly one that pretends to care about social justice, isn't appropriate for Brixton.

So what should white posters do?  Especially the 'usual suspects' whose views have now been stated often enough to be well known.  


I don't know about anyone else, but my views have developed through these arguments, but perhaps they've now hardened because I've tested the counter-arguments and found them wanting  (despite the claims about the radical nature of the 'heretical' voices on here, I think a lot of it is pretty trite and hasn't really developed since the 70s, and needs to).

So I can continue to state what I think, and debate with the other usual suspects, and we can dominate the arguments and exclude new people, if only because we use a certain amount of shorthand (I'd like to think the era of bullying is in the past).  Or I can shut-up, and lose something I personally value as enjoyable, in the interests of the forum and inclusiveness.

If I (and the other USs) belt up, will there be more voices who aren't white?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 14, 2004)

doubt it white people generally have minimal community based things and resort to the internet most black people have some form of community base and would rather be outside way from the pc doing real things than arguing about it in cyberspace why would they need a pseudo community when they have a real one?

edited to add not in a bigoted sterotyping way of course...


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

That's pretty damning in itself- we post here because we have nothing else going on in our lives.  Partial truth at best- the vast majority of people in the country resort to the TV to fill their time, as a refuge from either real life or virtual communities.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 14, 2004)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> doubt it white people generally have minimal community based things and resort to the internet most black people have some form of community base and would rather be outside way from the pc doing real things than arguing about it in cyberspace why would they need a pseudo community when they have a real one?
> 
> edited to add not in a bigoted sterotyping way of course...



What rubbish. Most of the people posting on this thread are very much involved in the local community in all kinds of ways. And I for one have learnt a lot about Brixton, and met some interesting people, through browsing these boards.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

> If I (and the other USs) belt up, will there be more voices who aren't white?



Regardless of race, I do think there's a genuine concern about the tonality of this forum that we're struggling to address.

I don't believe for a second that there's really an organised clique that sets out to manipulate and control opinion. However, I'd be fooling myself if I didn't acknowledge some discomfort with the way some threads routinely turn out here.

Take this thread for example. I don;t like to admit it, but I do see people having their genuine concerns dismissed. I do see insults and a group of more regular posters - to all intensive purposes - ganging up on more irregular ones.  I'm also discomforted by the clear implication that some posters are rightfully discouraged from writing because they can't cut the intellectual mustard, can't bear to have their views picked apart by 'forensic' investigation or judged by those who honestly believe that they have a 'superior' posting quality.

Arse. How many people really feel interested enough to contribute about a detailed discussion of 'groupthink' or in-jokes? How many others have the time to deal with prolific, hair-splitting rebuttals of anything they write? Or the confidence and time to hold their own when a close group are questionining their intellect and entirely refusing to back down?

In real life I like the posters involved, respect their viewpoints - they're sound people, genuinely committed to improving their surroundings. And i totally understand why people want to back up their friends,are passionate about the area they live in and why they find it difficult to let go of an argument. But I can't con myself that it doesn't sometimes consititute an intimidating atmosphere for new, or less confident posters, to contribute in. Folks have been telling us that that - not that we want to listen. 


No real answers, but I can't help but feel that this place could be more welcoming at times. To all races and people.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 14, 2004)

didn't say they weren't involved i said that they had no community.

White people have in all senses lost a large percentage of the community feel to their lives esp in London.  black people have more of a sense of community, this may well explain why there are relatively few black posters in brixton. 

It's not a slur, it's a comment.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

*White people have in all senses lost a large percentage of the community feel to their lives esp in London.* 

Not sure I agree, I live in a part of London with a traditional (white) Community as strong as any of the black communities.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 14, 2004)

where out of interest?

 i can think of bethanal green and perhaps dalston as being the only two...


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> where out of interest?
> 
> i can think of bethanal green and perhaps dalston as being the only two...



South East London.   Not that the traditional white community is necessarily a positive thing...


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

Garf - I disagree.  What makes you think that white people have little or no community?  

I just have to go to my local pub to see white people enjoying their community.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

Garf - stop digging yourself into a hole further

You really think that the Portuguese community in South London aren't as closely knit as the generic black community you're creating?  

Web access and internet use seems far more to do with educational and subsequent career opportunities, time and money. It goes without saying that some races have a raw deal in that context.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> *Forensic*
> 
> 1) Relating to denoting the scientific investigation of crime
> 2) Belonging to or used in a court of law
> ...


 Good going, Tarannau. That's the way to improve things  round here and raise the tone of the debate: nothing new to say, but quoting people right out of context,  grudge-bearing and spiteful ad hominems.  What else  is the _point_ of your post?

This has been a VERY long thread. Things have changed. Sorry you're unable to see that. To quote remarks at the beginning of the thread in its twilight hours is disingenuous to say the least. I made my peace with domski and others. We found common ground. Why are you trying to make things  nasty again? 






			
				tarannau said:
			
		

> Regardless of race, I do think there's a genuine concern about the tonality of this forum that we're struggling to address.


 Ha. 

...............


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

How is that quoting people out of context?

And why would I bother to hold a grudge against you? I've no axe to grind, no history of ongoing conflict.

I've just put down what I honestly feel. I'm sorry if you don't like that.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

To quickly respond to intostella's edited post:

I'd agree that you have made your peace with the posters on this thread. Credit for that. And this isn't meant to get into a personal gripe about any one individual's actions(please!), more to do with the group dynamic here.

But the last couple of pages have been dominated by regular posters being quite unrepentant about their actions, even praising  - for better or worse - the 'forensic' nature of the posts which led to the trouble in the first place. And there is the clear implication that folks don't write here because they aren't smart enough, or are simply faxing faux-outrage rather than having a genuine concern.  That doesn't seem a helpful wrap-up to me

I'm genuinely uncomfortable with that - it doesn't feel like we've really moved on. It shouldn't have to be about apologising after too many blow ups. More about avoiding the flame wars and fostering a better atmosphere in the first place.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> But the last couple of pages have been dominated by regular posters being quite unrepentant about their actions, even praising  - for better or worse - the 'forensic' nature of the posts which led to the trouble in the first place.


 So it's also wrong to systematically and rationally address arguments one doesn't agree with?  

So you're now saying that it's intimidating -- and ''causes trouble'' -- to put forward a sound argument. 

What are people SUPPOSED to do, tarannau?    

It seems to me that your idea of ''causing trouble'' is simply any line of reasoning  that you don't agree with.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

OK, attack me now. Looks familiar.

Ok, so there's nothing wrong with this forum -it's positively welcoming. Nothing to see here, absolutely no problems to report.

I'm out of here for the moment. Like many others.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 14, 2004)

sorry IS, I thought the point tarannau was making didn't concern what was a legit post/argument or not, but whether these boards might appear offputting to outsiders. as such - IMHO - perfectly fair comment, shurely?


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Regardless of race, I do think there's a genuine concern about the tonality of this forum that we're struggling to address.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that there's really an organised clique that sets out to manipulate and control opinion. However, I'd be fooling myself if I didn't acknowledge some discomfort with the way some threads routinely turn out here.
> 
> Take this thread for example. I don;t like to admit it, but I do see people having their genuine concerns dismissed. I do see insults and a group of more regular posters - to all intensive purposes - ganging up on more irregular ones.  I'm also discomforted by the clear implication that some posters are rightfully discouraged from writing because they can't cut the intellectual mustard, can't bear to have their views picked apart by 'forensic' investigation or judged by those who honestly believe that they have a 'superior' posting quality.



A bit of thread revisionism going on here.  This thread started because HB was so incensed by one of pk's posts on another thread.  What followed was NOT the 'usual suspects', the 'gang of what-ever' or any 'clique' leaping to his defence, but rather a number of posters attacking HB's moderating style.  A bit of 'ganging up' if you like.  Only in response to this, and after HB had decided to quit as moderator, did some regular posters begin to take issue with the more outlandish claims being made about gangs and cliques etc.

The HB-attackers then resorted to what, in my opinion, is the lamest of all defences, and one invariably dusted off by those getting a right-rhetorical kicking, "you lot are so exclusive, you put new people off."

Here we have it in its purest form (but not put by someone even involved in the original debate): 


"I'm also discomforted by the clear implication that some posters are rightfully discouraged from writing because they can't cut the intellectual mustard, can't bear to have their views picked apart by 'forensic' investigation or judged by those who honestly believe that they have a 'superior' posting quality."

This is an open forum.  Any one can contribute and make out their argument.  Others will respond to it.  If some posters feel 'intimidated' by the responses their posts encourage, I'm surprised but, ultimately, think tough.  Heat and kitchens.  Go somewhere less 'intimidating' instead.

If arguments were won because of abuse or threats, then there'd be a problem.  But that's not the case.  Seems to me that most of those who walk away from an argument on here, do so because they've been bettered in the debate.  That's what makes this place interesting and stimulating.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> OK, attack me now. Looks familiar.
> 
> Ok, so there's nothing wrong with this forum -it's positively welcoming. Nothing to see here, absolutely no problems to report.
> 
> I'm out of here for the moment. Like many others.


 Hang on a minute. You personally attacked me in a way that smacked strongly of sour grapes. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, which is that if both mudslinging and rational debate are ''intimidating'', what is left? And now you are playing the victim. 

Oh come on, you dish it out with the best (or worst) of them. Don't try to make out that you're being victimised or intimidated. You can be extremely nasty when you want to be, so it looks a bit hollow when you complain about the tone of the forum. I don't see you engaging in the sort of self-examination you are now expecting of others.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hang on a minute. You personally attacked me in a way that smacked strongly of sour grapes. I pointed out the flaw in your argument, which is that if both mudslinging and rational debate are ''intimidating'', what is left? And now you are playing the victim.
> 
> Oh come on, you dish it out with the best (or worst) of them. Don't try to make out that you're being victimised or intimidated. You can be extremely nasty when you want to be, so it looks a bit hollow when you complain about the tone of the forum. I don't see you engaging in the sort of self-examination you are now expecting of others.



Oh God, we're going to be accused of 'ganging up' [and we've never even met!].  But this is just too much.

Tarranau launches an attack on your posting style.  You respond.  He/she stalks off claiming it's intimidating or whatever ...

FFS!!


----------



## tarannau (Apr 14, 2004)

I'm not intimidated for what's it's worth. Just worn down and bored - what's the point?

People don't tend to walk away from a thread because they have been intellectually bettered - witness how many threads pbman has 'won' on the World Politics forum through prolific posting - more often that they can't be bothered.

It didn't take too long for you to shovel words into my mouth. I haven't questioned the legitimacy of honest debate, more the tonality and group dynamic that occurs here. Talk about attacking defence.

I don't want to get into reductive arguments into who is more right or more aggressive. Other posters can be the judge of that - I reckon I'm a fairly considerate and polite poster.

I'll stand by my words and perception of this forum at the moment. I'm not going to pretend that it's as welcoming or inclusive as it should be. Sorry.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I'm not intimidated for what's it's worth. Just worn down and bored - what's the point?
> 
> I don't want to get into reductive arguments into who is more right or more aggressive. Other posters can be the judge of that - I reckon I'm a fairly considerate and polite poster.
> 
> I'll stand by my words and perception of this forum at the moment. I'm not going to pretend that it's as welcoming or inclusive as it should be. Sorry.



So why did you make th post you did about IS and others?


"Sorry to interrupt the love in and mutual back-slapping, but that comment seemed far too ridiculous to let go. Forensic my arse. 

What hasn't changed is that there are the same faces on this thread, saying roughly the same things at great length. You protest too hard, yet none - bar Hatboy - has shown a jot of regret, changed their positioning or admitted any responsibility for the present state of affairs. How's it going to change?

I still think that it's not conducive to a good atmosphere for new posters on this forum. Maybe a wave of new posters will prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect all I'll see is the usual suspects bickering over their reputations."


Did you think think no-one would respond? Or do you think no one should respond?   

Then as soon as someone does respond you stalk off tossing   icons around.

So far as I can tell, you think the way to make this forum more 'welcoming' and 'inclusive' is that the 'inclusive welcomers' throw insults around everyone else sits quietly by and takes it.

I'm quite happy to debate why you or anyone else thinks this forum is not welcoming and how you would propose to remedy that.  But PLEASE don't play all hard done to when you kicked off with the post you did.


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

First off this isn't a criticism of any posters, this is just a statement of how I feel.

I do feel intimidated on this forum and I know lots of others do too.  It feels aggressive to me and that's what puts off.  I feel the same about P&P.
I do appreciate that I may have an “eggshell” personality but I feel that if I disagree with someone or if I’m wrong I’ll be shown up in a nasty way and it discourages me from posting what I really think sometimes.  

The best way I can explain it is it feels like it’s not ok to be wrong.  I think it should be ok to be wrong without feeling like you don’t deserve to post.
However, I’m not sure if the fault is with me or with others, maybe a bit of both.


----------



## fanta (Apr 14, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I'm not intimidated for what's it's worth. Just worn down and bored - what's the point?
> 
> People don't tend to walk away from a thread because they have been intellectually bettered - witness how many threads pbman has 'won' on the World Politics forum through prolific posting - more often that they can't be bothered.
> 
> ...



Don't be sorry. You have no reason to be sorry. 

I don't think that there is an _organised_ elitist clique/gang of four/whatever.

Despite that, but I do believe that the perception held by some posters that there are some 'snooty' Brixton forum regulars who look down their noses at newcomers is not false either. That is why some feel that it's maybe not as welcoming or inclusive as it should or could be.

So what to do? After getting the hint that they are not the sort of posters welcome here a poster can always just leave and go elsewhere.  This is the objective of our snooty friends.

Or, a poster made to feel unwelcome can decide to stay in spite of the dissaproving tut-tuting. This will vex our snooty friends.

I know which I choose to do.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> I do believe that the perception held by some posters that there are some 'snooty' Brixton forum regulars who look down their noses at newcomers is not false either. That is why some feel that it's maybe not as welcoming or inclusive as it should or could be.
> 
> So what to do? After getting the hint that they are not the sort of posters welcome here a poster can always just leave and go elsewhere.  This is the objective of our snooty friends.
> 
> ...



Yeah, there's a gang of real lefties here who gang up on anyone who disagrees with them until they eventually get 'intimidated' away.  God help anyone who doesn't conform to their views ...


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

*The Great Cut Out ‘N’ Keep U75 Editorial Line War!*

Pooka: this may help.


I posted (387)



> I still wonder why Hatboy was attacked. Was it because of  his occasional mistakes as a moderator? Or was it because of his editorial line?



To which editor replied (391):



> Probably the latter. The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong 'editorial line'.



Pooka posted (395)



> I'd like an authoritative answer to this one. Do these boards have an editorial line, how is it determined and what is it?



To which editor responded (400):



> Err, it's all clearly explained in the Posting FAQ: "no racism, gratutious abuse, advertising, trolling, spamming etc etc etc"



And expanded (414):



> Like I said, hatboy was far more 'hands on' than any other moderator and his pro-active 'editorial line' meant that he actively tried to influence the content here.



Pooka pressed on fearlessly (417):



> But I really, really, really would like to know if it is a policy of Urban75 boards to have an "editorial line"



Jezza then posted (419):



> anyone who abides by the (pretty generous) FAQ rules gets to make up the editorial-and that's too divergent for any 'line'



To which editor responded (426):



> Exactly. There is no pre-defined 'editorial line' that all moderators have to subscribe to.



But Pooka was still concerned (429):



> But can there be an "editorial line" on a particular forum, to which posters will be "encouraged" to subscribe?



But received reassurance from editor (430)



> I've absolutely no idea what you're on about.



But added:



> If you carry on like this, you're going to force me to use capital letters and bold text to make the point that there is NO pre-defined 'editorial line' on urban75.
> 
> Moderators are NOT asked to adhere to any 'editorial line' because there isn't one. I don't "encourage" posters to post in any forums. I don't "encourage" anyone to "subscribe" to anything. I don't start the threads. I don't delete people's comments. There is only the Posting FAQ and that's it.



And concluded:



> Got it?



There you go pooka: 

There *is* an editorial line (391). There is *no* editorial line (430). 

I’m certain editor meant different things when - seemingly - contradicting himself. Editorial lines are tricky buggers.

My take on ‘editorial line’ is this: everything depends on how the faq is enforced by the editor and by moderators. 

Differing degrees of enforcement – or differing editorial or moderator styles if you prefer - result in differing editorial lines emerging on a thread or forum.

The same happens in any chunk of the media – defined simply as ‘a place where ideas are broadcast’ – editors (or moderators) enforce the same set of rules (mostly the libel laws) in differing ways, to produce differing results. 

See the editorial lines of the _Daily Mail_ and the _Morning Star._ Same legal framework. Wildly differing lines.

This also mirrors what occurs in political parties and trade union branches. The chair’s job is to enforce a written constitution. 

But, as everyone involved knows  - or may learn painfully - different chairs enforcing the same Constitution produce radically different results.

That, in a nutshell, was why I was concerned (politically) when Hatboy left. I feared a political cleansing operation was underway.

Ed has given categorical assurances that this isn't to occur. I'm happy with that.


----------



## fanta (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> *The Great Cut Out ‘N’ Keep U75 Editorial Line War!*
> 
> Pooka: this may help....



Well that was a worthile and very necessary post for which we are all immensely grateful

By the way, you're in the library right?

Are there no interesting books on the shelves?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> The best way I can explain it is it feels like it’s not ok to be wrong.  I think it should be ok to be wrong without feeling like you don’t deserve to post.


 That is fair enough and gets to one of the knottier roots of the problem: the grey area between people accepting criticism of their arguments and feeling that they are being told not to post. 

I think quite a few people infer the latter from the former, which is a shame, but the answer is not for them to then lower themselves to the level of mudslinging about gangs of four, cliques and the like. Nobody likes to be told they are wrong but in  a political discussion it's inevitable that it will happen.  It's nothing personal. The nature of many (but by no means all, and quite right) discussions in the Brixton forum is clearly political because of the nature of the place and the issues involved. There are a lot of social and other problems, giving rise to some intense political discussions. I fail to see why that should not be so. As long as there is balance and diversity in the forum's overall content, I see no problem. And personally, think there _is _  balance and diversity.


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Good grief, how you squirm Anna! 

You're only justification of an 'editorial line', which the editor has vehemently rejected, is that the FAQ are capable of myriad and multiple interpretations, and that in developing their own interpretation each moderator will develop their own 'editorial line'.

What tosh! editor has already said that only Brixton forum had developed an editorial line (are the other mods failing in their duries?) whilst the FAQ's are so piss-simple that there is no ambiguity, only a question of how severely they're implemented.

The Daily Mail and the Morning Star have differeing editorial lines not because they differently interpret their corporate status, but because the hold different polictical views and have decided that their pages _will be devoted overwhelmingly to those views_. 

That's an editorial line. It's what you believed existed on this forum, justified by this chunks of EP Thomson, sustained by beligerence and latterly by partial moderating. It is because of that belief that you feared hatboy's departure represented '_political_cleansing' (my emphasis).

Maybe there is room on the planet for such a Forum, maybe you can pursuade editor to constitute Brixton Forum in such a way. 

But if you do, do just make sure it's clearly badged as such - so that people who genuinly want open debate, encompassing whatever views as long as they respect the FAQ's, know where they stand.

By the way, the exchange between tarannau and Intostella is a classic of it's kind.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

You are quite unbelieveable, Pooka. AK has been accused of  many things, but belligerence? LOL!  That's MY department.   

We have a job demarcation problem here, comrades!  Better convene the gang!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> ...an 'editorial line', which the editor has vehemently rejected...


But he didn't. You made that up. Compare 391 to 430. 

I've even done the leg-work for you - just scroll up four posts.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> But he didn't. You made that up. Compare 391 to 430.
> 
> I've even done the leg-work for you - just scroll up four posts.


 Stop being so belligerent. You're intimidating people.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Stop being so belligerent. You're intimidating people.


Fanta? You alright mate?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Stop being so belligerent. You're intimidating people.


Bob? Is that you shaking in your boots?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Stop being so belligerent. You're intimidating people.


Lang rabbie? No need to look so scared!!


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That is fair enough and gets to one of the knottier roots of the problem: the grey area between people accepting criticism of their arguments and feeling that they are being told not to post.



Exactly, I think you've hit it on the head there.  

Get the sensitive posters to accept criticism without feeling like they are having their character assassinated and have the more uncompromising posters to be less aggressive with newbies and I believe you have the answer to all the forum’s problems. 

I just don't know how we do that, or even if we should. 
No wonder Haboy got fed up, it's hardly a task I would relish.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Stop being so belligerent. You're intimidating people.


tarannau: perhaps the "tonality" and "group dynamic" of my belligerence is putting people off?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> No wonder Haboy got fed up, it's hardly a task I would relish.


Belligerent posters should be given one warning *then they're out.* 

Pooka should decide how 'belligerence' is to be defined.

A person banned for 'belligerence' should have one right of appeal - to tarannau.

Easy!


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That is fair enough and gets to one of the knottier roots of the problem: the grey area between people accepting criticism of their arguments and feeling that they are being told not to post.
> ---8<---
> Nobody likes to be told they are wrong but in  a political discussion it's inevitable that it will happen.  It's nothing personal.
> ---8<---



I honestly don't think that's accurate.  all too often it's not arguments that are attacked, it's posters.  Whether as representatives of some social trend (Claphamisation, mainstream, professional, etc), or some sort of personal inadequacy (dishonest, po-faced, eggshell personality, etc) doesn't matter, too often it's the person under attack and not their views.


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Suffering Jesus, hand me a cold chisel someone!

Anna, both jezza said, and editor agreed with him, that the way in which editorial content emerges is too defuse to be connoted a 'line' - more my notion of center of gravity. 


Yet you still insist that this forum can be like the Daily Mail or The Morning Star, both of which have an _enforced_ line. For clarity, would you agree with me that:

1. Anyone should be able to post on this forum, as long as they observe the FAQ's
2. There is likely to be a political centre of gravity but that may shift where it will, subject only to the FAQ. There should be no presumption that any particular viewpoint, generally or on issues such as Brixton gentrification, holds precedence.
3. All posters will be treated with equal respect, whatsoever their views. "And yeah shall the boho and the marginal lie down with the yuppie and the developer".


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Suffering Jesus, hand me a cold chisel someone!


 I say! That's a tad intimidating, isn't it?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Pooka: I can't help it if editor contradicts himself. It's a long thread and he's a busy man.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I say! That's a tad intimidating, isn't it?



I've had enough of this.  I'm leaving now because you're all so beastly.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

I see no contradiction between what the editor says in #391 and #430.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think that's accurate.  all too often it's not arguments that are attacked, it's posters.  Whether as representatives of some social trend (Claphamisation, mainstream, professional, etc), or some sort of personal inadequacy (dishonest, po-faced, eggshell personality, etc) doesn't matter, too often it's the person under attack and not their views.


 I said that some people infer an attack on their argument as an attack on them personally. And historically I think you have shown yourself to fall into that category at times, at least.  

You're no newbie,  newbie (   ) and you've fought many a political battle. You also post a lot in P&P. Do you suddenly come over all fragile again when you go to the Brixton forum? 

The eggshell personality  remark originally made by anna has been misconstrued -- IMV wilfully in some cases.  The point is not tough tit to people who are fragile and easily intimidated,  but that some posters who have previously demonstrated themselves to be as robust as old boots have looked mightily suspicious when they suddenly come over all fragile and intimidated when things weren't going their way.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

There is a world of difference between a new or non-regular poster coming to the Brixton forum with mistaken assumptions, perhaps, but not with the intention of antagonising, and people bowling in and accusing people of being racist trustafarians, Daily Mail nimbies, snobs, cliques and the like, which is just trolling. 

We've gone over all this  already here and I think we've come a long way. It has been interesting and heartening. It's just a shame some people have still got their hands clamped firmly over their ears.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

That post does not address the points I made at all.  It is focussed on me and on my right to hold the views I hold.

Firstly, the side issue: it's a user name, that's all.  At the time of registration I expected it to last a few days, as with disposable names on dozens of other boards. I don't take yours to imply that your life revolves around lager. Don't read anything into it.


The first two paragraphs of your post concern themselves with who, or what, you think I am.  Only the first sentence addresses the issue, and that merely to attempt to restate what you think you said earlier.  

The final paragraph is a more general assessment of the personalities of 'some' posters with whose views you disagree.  This attempts to doubt their right to say what they've said, because you doubt their sincerity.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

So some posters can be as disingenuous and as dishonest as they like and one is not allowed to comment on it because that is a _personal attack_ on them?  

Is it OK to be dishonest  as long as you've got your chakras crossed at the time?  

You don't _want_ a level playing field. You want some of us to stand completely still while you take potshots at us.  You can misrepresent others as much as you like but they mustn't be all beastly and defend themselves?


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> For clarity, would you agree with me that:
> 
> 1. Anyone should be able to post on this forum, as long as they observe the FAQ's
> 2. There is likely to be a political centre of gravity but that may shift where it will, subject only to the FAQ. There should be no presumption that any particular viewpoint, generally or on issues such as Brixton gentrification, holds precedence.
> 3. All posters will be treated with equal respect, whatsoever their views. "And yeah shall the boho and the marginal lie down with the yuppie and the developer".






			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka: I can't help it if editor contradicts himself.



Anna: How's about answering the question.


----------



## newbie (Apr 14, 2004)

Once again that serves to personalise the discussion rather than, well, discuss the point.

Are you accusing me of being 'disingenuous and as dishonest', and if so, why?

So far as I know I have never taken potshots at _you_, nor am I aware of having misrepresented _you_.  I have sometimes been critical of what you have written- your posts- which is a different thing.  

To stick with the footballing analogy, the level playing field I'd like to see is one where everyone plays the ball and not the man.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I see no contradiction between what the editor says in #391 and #430.


391:


> The Brixton forum was the only one that had such a strong *'editorial line'.*



414: 


> Like I said, hatboy was far more 'hands on' than any other moderator and his pro-active *'editorial line'* meant that he actively tried to influence the content here.



430: 


> Moderators are NOT asked to adhere to any 'editorial line' *because there isn't one.*



[My emphasis]

Newbie: can you see the contradiction now? First there is an editorial line (391 and 414). Then there isn't one (430).

In logical terms this is a clear breach of the rule _p therefore not not-p_. 

Such breaches of Aristotelian logic are regular occurrences at the _quantum level_, but can reasonably be expected to hold on the Brixton Forum. 

I suspect the answer lies in a busy editor responding to a fast moving thread.

And we've Pooka to thank for this contradiction having emerged. He subjected the editor to a _forensic cross-examination_, which was nevertheless courteous and not at all off-putting to other posters.

Unless, of course, Mr BC, lang rabbie, fanta and Intostella were upset by it. Pooka? You'd better PM them to check.


----------



## Snorkelboy (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> 391:
> 
> 
> 414:
> ...



Personally I think it's quite obvious that the Editor was saying that Hatboy had his own editorial line for the Brixton forum, while there is no U75 editorial line that moderators have to stick to.

Or am I missing something?

<Edited to add  "his own">


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: How's about answering the question.


Sure babe:




> Anyone should be able to post on this forum, as long as they observe the FAQ's


Yes.



> There is likely to be a political centre of gravity but that may shift where it will, subject only to the FAQ. There should be no presumption that any particular viewpoint, generally or on issues such as Brixton gentrification, holds precedence.


Indeed.



> All posters will be treated with equal respect, whatsoever their views.


Absolutely. 

And I'd like to congratulate you on the courteous and non-threatening way you put these excellent questions. But don't you think we should enquire to ascertain that no one was upset by them, if only sub-consciously?


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna: I don't see the contradiction. Editor was saying (though he will I'm sure speak for himself) that Urban75 does not have an editorial line, the moderators are not asked to enforce one but that hatboy had developed one in the Brixton Forum which had a mixed response from posters. You quite liked it Anna, others didn't.

If there's a contradiction it's between where this Forum was headed and where Urban75 is generally - one with an editirial line and one without. I think editor was being tactful in not pursuing that line.

Basically Anna, your prior presumption that your views had priority here has been shown to have no basis. Get over it, and then we can have some useful debate about substantive issues. You're more than able to hold your ground without any priviledged position.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Snorkelboy said:
			
		

> Personally I think it's quite obvious that the Editor was saying that Hatboy had his own editorial line for the Brixton forum, while there is no U75 editorial line that moderators have to stick to.
> 
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> <Edited to add  "his own">


Is that right pooka? Be nice now.

<posted before reading 577>


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Is that right pooka? Be nice now.
> 
> <posted before reading 577>



Given that snorkelboy posted whilst I was typing mine, I'd say yes! Perhaps it's just self-evident?


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

Just a quick question:  What are posters on this thread trying to achieve?

It seems to be repeating itself and going nowhere. 

I'm just wondering what the point is now to all this, hasn't it run it's course?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: I don't see the contradiction. Editor was saying (though he will I'm sure speak for himself) that Urban75 does not have an editorial line, the moderators are not asked to enforce one but that hatboy had developed one in the Brixton Forum which had a mixed response from posters. You quite liked it Anna, others didn't.
> 
> If there's a contradiction it's between where this Forum was headed and where Urban75 is generally - one with an editirial line and one without. I think editor was being tactful in not pursuing that line.
> 
> Basically Anna, your prior presumption that your views had priority here has been shown to have no basis. Get over it, and then we can have some useful debate about substantive issues. You're more than able to hold your ground without any priviledged position.


But if what you're saying is correct:

- no board-wide editorial line on urban75

- but an editorial line existed on the Brixton Forum and was enforced by Hatboy (you've put words into the editor's mouth. I was being more careful - just pointing to an apparent contradiction) -

Then my claim that an editorial line existed on the Brixton forum has been shown to be precisely correct.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Just a quick question:  What are posters on this thread trying to achieve?


Different things, perhaps, for different posters?

I've rather enjoyed Mr BC's recent posts. So I've "achieved" some pleasure. Isn't that the overall function of urban75? To inform and entertain? A bit like the BBC.

I've also enjoyed seeing a particularly pernicious argument being attacked (words to the effect of): 

_You can't tell the truth in case someone gets upset._


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> But if what you're saying is correct:
> 
> - no board-wide editorial line on urban75
> 
> ...



Why dont you just PM Mike if youre confused?


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Just a quick question:  What are posters on this thread trying to achieve?
> It seems to be repeating itself and going nowhere.
> I'm just wondering what the point is now to all this, hasn't it run it's course?



LD Rudeboy: For quite a time (it seems) there has been a presumption (eloquently set out by Anna Key) that Brixton Forum had a particular 'editorial line' which, howsoever it emerged, was to be enforced by the moderator and by other methods of encouragement/discouragement of particular _posters _ based on how they measured up relative to this line.

And it looks like one group of people posting on this forum believed this to be the case. At the same time, many people (myself included) assumed this was an open forum and that (subject to the FAQ) all and every viewpoint had equal validity.

This disparity of understanding has led to a lot of the outright nastiness which has been around some of the threads in the Brixton Forum for the last year or so.

Those of the 'editorial line' view have felt justified in using personal attacks, ganging-up tag team tactics and even the moderator editing peoples posts, to protect the 'line'. Others, resenting attempts to gag posters, have fought back. 

So that's why it's been important to nail.

I've certainly learned a lot from this thread. I genuinely had no idea that Anna (say) had such a different understanding of what U75 is than i. Now I know where he's coming from I can better engage with him in debate.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Why dont you just PM Mike if youre confused?


Because I'm involved in a public debate.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Those of the 'editorial line' view have felt justified in using personal attacks, ganging-up tag team tactics


Oh have they now? And who are "those?" 

As far as I can see I'm the only poster who recognised what I took to be an editorial line and raised the issue on this thread.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

Sorry, pooka mate, but what a steaming pile of horse-eggs!

This is PRECISELY the sort of pernicious misrepresentation of that facts that I'm talking about. 

I, for one, had HUGE political arguments with hatboy.* What about Justin, a staunch leftie and anti-gentrifer? Why isn't he here if he was part of the gang  you claim hatboy was encouraging?* Anna key and gramsci also both came in for a ton of flak from hatboy. 

Oh but we're not allowed to dismantle your shockingly dishonest arguments,  are we? Because it's too_ intimidating_!!


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Because I'm involved in a public debate.



Sorry, I mistook the debate for a twenty page willy waving contest.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Sorry, I mistook the debate for a twenty page willy waving contest.


Sorry, I mistook the debate for an interesting examination of how the Brixton Forum - arguably the heart of u75 where cyber and neighbourhood meets  - wants to organise itself.

But you've not been upset have you? Not been "put off?" Can't be too careful.


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Sorry, pooka mate, but what a steaming pile of horse-eggs!
> 
> This is PRECISELY the sort of pernicious misrepresentation of that facts that I'm talking about.
> 
> ...



The differences between hatboy and Justin were excedingly idiosyncratic and pretty much apolitical; they were around libraries, pavement cycling and 'dullness' if I recall.


"dishonest arguments," - there you go again


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh but we're not allowed to dismantle your shockingly dishonest arguments,  are we? Because it's too_ intimidating_!!


Careful. He'll get upset.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> The differences between hatboy and Justin were excedingly idiosyncratic and pretty much apolitical; they were around libraries, pavement cycling and 'dullness' if I recall.
> 
> 
> "dishonest arguments," - there you go again


Well stop _doing _ it then!   

The arguments between hatboy and Justin were _ thoroughly _ political, unless you are going to  (falsely) adopt an incredibly obtuse view of what constitutes politics like the ''I don't do politics'' bloke on the TV ad.


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> LD Rudeboy: For quite a time (it seems) there has been a presumption (eloquently set out by Anna Key) that Brixton Forum had a particular 'editorial line' which, howsoever it emerged, was to be enforced by the moderator and by other methods of encouragement/discouragement of particular _posters _ based on how they measured up relative to this line.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> The arguments between hatboy and Justin were _ thoroughly _ political, unless you are going to  (falsely) adopt an incredibly obtuse view of what constitutes politics like the ''I don't do politics'' bloke on the TV ad.



From what I remember Hatboy's biggest criticism was on how boring Justin was.  I thought that was more personal than political? 

Isn't that why Justin left too?


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> This disparity of understanding has led to a lot of the outright nastiness which has been around some of the threads in the Brixton Forum for the last year or so.
> 
> Those of the 'editorial line' view have felt justified in using personal attacks, ganging-up tag team tactics and even the moderator editing peoples posts, to protect the 'line'. Others, resenting attempts to gag posters, have fought back.
> 
> So that's why it's been important to nail.



Again, these are very serious allegations.

It's not enough merely to assert that there was 'nastiness' and 'personal attacks' 'ganging-up' 'gagging', where is the evidence to support these assertions?

And what exactly is wrong with IS calling these arguments dishonest if that is her view?  It is for you now to show that they are not dishonest.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

*Sorry, I mistook the debate for an interesting examination of how the Brixton Forum - arguably the heart of u75 where cyber and neighbourhood meets - wants to organise itself.* 

I didnt know the forum wanted to organise itself?  How about a poll asking whether people are happy with the Posting FAQ or whether they would like to see an 'Editorial Line'


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Where is the FAQ? The one saying “no racism, no sexism etc?” The only vaguely relevant thing– to this thread- is this:


> *What are moderators? *
> Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move threads, and perform other manipulations. Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgeable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.


So no mention of ‘editorial line’ there. Or sacrificing telling the truth for being “nice.”


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *I didnt know the forum wanted to organise itself?*


Eh? Haven't you read the thread?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Where is the FAQ? The one saying “no racism, no sexism etc?” The only vaguely relevant thing– to this thread- is this:
> 
> So no mention of ‘editorial line’ there. Or sacrificing telling the truth for being “nice.”



Well it was you that brought up the idea of an 'editorial line'   

Personally Im more than happy with the FAQ


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> Again, these are very serious allegations.
> 
> It's not enough merely to assert that there was 'nastiness' and 'personal attacks' 'ganging-up' 'gagging', where is the evidence to support these assertions?
> 
> And what exactly is wrong with IS calling these arguments dishonest if that is her view?  It is for you now to show that they are not dishonest.



Mr BC: I have given an account of what I believe I have observed happening on this Forum over the past year or more, probablys since the "Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies Thread". Others who've followed the same events may agree or disagree with me. This is not a court of law.

It would be perfectly reasonable for IS to tell me she wholly disagrees with my opinion, but to call someone dishonest isn't in my view, unless it's a matter of fact that is at contention, which can be proved one way or another.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Eh? Haven't you read the thread?



Yes, most people seem to be against the idea of an editorial line IMO, perhaps a poll if you really think an editorial line would be a good thing?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Personally Im more than happy with the FAQ


Can you link to it please? I've read it before but can't find the bugger.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 14, 2004)

i think the only reason this shitty thread is still kicking is coz there aint nobody moderating right now... and going by mike's blog, hes away on holiday somewhere... 

the same people, saying the same things, over and over and over.. i think a lot of people probably dont necessarily find the clique 'intimidating', just a bit tedious..


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Mr BC: I have given an account of what I believe I have observed happening on this Forum over the past year or more, probablys since the "Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies Thread". Others who've followed the same events may agree or disagree with me. This is not a court of law.



We'll take it that there's no evidence then, shall we?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 14, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> From what I remember Hatboy's biggest criticism was on how boring Justin was.  I thought that was more personal than political?


 Ah, but the personal  _is_ political. 


> Isn't that why Justin left too?


 Hatboy was not the sole reason for Justin leaving, any more than pk was the sole reason for hatboy leaving his modship.


----------



## LDR (Apr 14, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Ah, but the personal  _is_ political.



I thought someone would say that. 




			
				IntoStella said:
			
		

> Hatboy was not the sole reason for Justin leaving, any more than pk was the sole reason for hatboy leaving his modship.



I don't know the full background of why Justin left.  I just assumed that it was because Hatboy attacked him personally on the boards. That'll teach me to assume things.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 14, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> We'll take it that there's no evidence then, shall we?


Come on. Demanding evidence isn't nice. Pooka may become upset, zubaier could become both bored and upset while others may be "put off" posting.

I've found the FAQ . It's quite a funny document. I don't disagree with any of it. There's no mention of an editorial line for any forum, over and above the FAQ.

But neither is there mention of having to be "nice" to people, of having to avoid arguments in case people are "put off" posting and nothing about having to abandon telling the truth in case a poster becomes hysterical.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 14, 2004)

and still it goes on....

look surely at the end of the day hat boy has made his decision it's up to the rest of the forum to deal with it...

so deal with it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 14, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> And it looks like one group of people posting on this forum believed this to be the case. At the same time, many people (myself included) assumed this was an open forum and that (subject to the FAQ) all and every viewpoint had equal validity.
> 
> This disparity of understanding has led to a lot of the outright nastiness which has been around some of the threads in the Brixton Forum for the last year or so.
> 
> ...



    As Mr BC said these are very serious allegations and asked you for evidence-you still have not replied.

   As Ive said before Ive been very impressed by Mr BCs posts on this thread.Its interesting Pooka,Lang Rabbie dont deal with the comments Mr BC posts up instead keeping up arguing with a supposed "tag team".

   Its clear that Mr BC,who I assume Pooka does not believe is part of the "tag team"(please clarify this Pooka) has a completely different view from Pooka of these boards.

   A few points for Pooka:

 1)Anyone can post up if they follow the FAQ.Whether every viewpoint has "equal validity" has nothing to do with it.Thats a value judgement for each individual.My reading of the rules is that everyone has a equal right to post up-thats all.

 2)As has been pointed out to you many times HB was his own man-he certainly did not have to work in consort with others to enforce an "editorial line".You seem to suggest their are two factions fighting each other here and that you are sticking up for free speech.

 3)Im asking you to name the "tag team" who are supposed to be "gagging" other posters.Also I want to now who the "others" are who are "fighting back".

   As for my own posting style-as far as possible I dont personally attack people-its not me.I however dont want everyone to post up like me.If my style of posting can seem "intellectual" and therefore offputting-I dont know what to do about that.I use an "intellectual" posting style as a device to stop things getting to personally "nasty".I often find however that this does not get a response.Also an "intellectual" posting style is not a sign of elitism.Its the opposite.I respect the intelligence of people posting here to follow an intellectual argument even if they dont agree with it.

  I for example used it on pks posts and the issue of Groupthink neither of which elicited replies.

 As for people feeling intimidated.Well Im hardly the most confident person around.Ive just ploughed on not allowing people to put me off.If I have got to know a few people through these boards it hardly shows that the internet has nothing to do with "real life".


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 14, 2004)

Gramsci, I have not responded to Mr BC's comments because I really did not want to prolong the misery that is this thread.

But, since you think that was remiss of me, for what its worth, I believe *"forensic"* - as used by Mr BC to describe an adversarial posting style - is as loaded a phrase as others believe "behaviours" or "symptoms" to be.   Maybe his use reflects his personal background and professional  experience.

There are many non-lawyers out there, (and to be fair also some reformist barristers and solicitor advocates) who would argue that the adversarial Anglo-American legal system does not always lead to the truth.   

For at least forty years, there has been a minority of opinion in jurisprudential circles arguing for a more "inquisitorial" system incorporating the continental investigating judge approach.    For example:

1  News story from last year

2   Australian human rights campaign group  



> The Adversarial legal system versus Human Rights
> 
> The purpose of an adversarial legal system is not to provide justice. Rather a modified field of battle is all that is on offer by a State seeking an administrative closure to a dispute at low cost to the State.
> 
> ...


(I hasten to add that I don't draw any analogy between Hatboy's role as moderator and the judge as described in that bit of polemic!  )

There have been too many miscarriages of justice where the appeal judge had criticised an inappropriate style of cross-examination by prosecuting counsel which has unduly influenced the jury/intimidated defence witnesses.  On my reading, it appears that in those cases the original trial judge allowed "aggressive" or "intimidatory" cross examination because (as a result of their training in debating/mooting ?)they considered it to be good, probing, robust line of questioning, oblivious to the terror of the intimidated witness.


----------



## JWH (Apr 14, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> the same people, saying the same things, over and over and over.. i think a lot of people probably dont necessarily find the clique 'intimidating', just a bit tedious..


ooh, absolutely.


----------



## pooka (Apr 14, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> I've found the URL=http://www.urban75.org/info/faq.html]FAQ[/URL] . It's quite a funny document. I don't disagree with any of it. There's no mention of an editorial line for any forum, over and above the FAQ.



Anna: Glad to hear you've got round to reading the FAQ after all this time - you were remarkably well versed earlier in the thread (about the relationship between the FAQ and an editorial line) for someone who hadn't   

But you're right - there's no reference to an 'editorial line'. Going back to your analogy with a Constitution, wouldn't any attempt to impose or maintain an 'editorial line' be _ultra vires_ (I'm sure you know more about these things than I do.




			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> having to abandon telling the truth in case a poster becomes hysterical.



Where did anyone claim that? 




			
				Mr BC said:
			
		

> We'll take it that there's no evidence then, shall we?






			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> Come on. Demanding evidence isn't nice. Pooka may become upset, zubaier could become both bored and upset while others may be "put off" posting.






			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> As Mr BC said these are very serious allegations and asked you for evidence-you still have not replied.



Well, as regards 'still not', I do have a life and do need to earn a living Gramsci! 

I have made an assertion about two disparate views that have held sway on this Forum for the past year and the consequent dynamic that has ensued. My evidence? The following threads:

Selling Central Brixton to Yuppies (sadly deleted, but there will be many here who recall it - I think I may have a copy somewhere);

That place for young hip and trendy people  
Brixton's Culture Blanding Out  

Should people who don't live in Brixton be banned from posting in this forum? 

Independent Working Class Association in Brixton? 

This thread itself

Why should I cite whole threads rather than individual posts? Because the assertion is based on a long period of postings and is a view taken on 'balance'. Could someone read these threads and arrive at a different view? Of course. I'm quite happy for other posters to agree or disagree with me.

However, some specifics:

_"And it looks like one group of people posting on this forum believed this to be the case.[that there is - or should be -an editorial line]"_

Well, Anna has made that claim repeatedly on this very thread, Gramsci has praised his posts doing so, Intostella has leapt to his defence, with Jezza and Pickman's in attendance. hatboy has reported that " he tried to frighten off idiots" - so yes, I'd say "one group of people posting in this forum" is a reasonable description.

_"This disparity of understanding has led to a lot of the outright nastiness which has been around some of the threads in the Brixton Forum for the last year or so."_

Well, plenty of people on this thread have attested to nastiness, and indeed the thread hasn't been without it. The fact that it's a consequence of the disparity of view is a matter of opinion - I've stated mine.

_Those of the 'editorial line' view have felt justified in using personal attacks, ganging-up tag team tactics and even the moderator editing peoples posts, to protect the 'line'_

Those tactics have been attributed on this thread by a number of posters,  to some of the people who support the 'editorial line' view. And no, not including Gramsi who is always courteous. The motivation is my interpretation.




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> 3)Im asking you to name the "tag team" who are supposed to be "gagging" other posters.Also I want to now who the "others" are who are "fighting back".



Where have there been tag teams? Well, look above for the running "gag" about beligerence. Two posters on the same side of an arguement batting back and forth a weak joke about a third poster's posting. I think the metaphor 'tag-team' is exactly right.

Who has been defending feedom of speech. For myself I find lang rabbie, newbie, domski and occasionally fanta's posts deserve credit in this respect. And of course, I try to make my own small contribution.




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> 1)Anyone can post up if they follow the FAQ.Whether every viewpoint has "equal validity" has nothing to do with it.Thats a value judgement for each individual.My reading of the rules is that everyone has a equal right to post up-thats all.



Hairsplitting I'd say, Gramsci. Validity is clearly being used here to mean "worthy of posting" - not "worth of Gramsci's (or anyone else's) approval"  




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> 2)As has been pointed out to you many times HB was his own man-he certainly did not have to work in consort with others to enforce an "editorial line".You seem to suggest their are two factions fighting each other here and that you are sticking up for free speech.



Yes, I believe there have been two distinct schools of thought in respect whether or not the contents of posts should be in some way constrained, above and beyond the FAQ. I think Anna et al believed there was an 'editorial line' to be maintained, I think hatboy also thought that - and sometimes they agreed what that line should be! 

For my part, I don't want to engage with a forum with such a line. As long as people adher to the FAQ they can say what they want and expect to argue their corner, perhaps to be outnumbered, but not to be insulted, harrassed or harangued if they are in a minority.

OK - I've learned a lot from this thread, for which thanks to everyone, but forgive me if I don't post with any frequency back to this thread - it's been too much of a distraction this last couple of days and I have some work committments hanging over me.

A bientot, mes amis 

PS This thread has now overtaken "Guns, Crack ..Commander" in terms of number of posts. Perhaps we should reflect soberly on what that tells us about our changing preoccupations?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Apr 15, 2004)

yawn!

night thread see you at the top in the morning i guess


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 15, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> Gramsci, I have not responded to Mr BC's comments because I really did not want to prolong the misery that is this thread.
> 
> But, since you think that was remiss of me, for what its worth, I believe *"forensic"* - as used by Mr BC to describe an adversarial posting style - is as loaded a phrase as others believe "behaviours" or "symptoms" to be.   Maybe his use reflects his personal background and professional  experience.
> 
> ...



There is a debate to be had about the effectiveness of the Anglo-Saxon adversarial approach to court proceedings and the inquisatorial approach favoured in Code Napoleon jurisdictions.  The arguments about bullying and aggressiveness are familiar ones.  

Can it really be said though that a forensic approach to arguments _on a bulletin board_  can be likened to the immediacy of the cut and thrust of a witness under cross examination in a Court room?

Anyone whose argument is being subjected to a forensic examination on a bulletin board can take a day or a week to reply if they wish.  I hardly think the same arguments apply.

In any event the inquisatorial approach to justice still involves a forensic examination of evidence, including testimony.  Even in France, for example, if one were to make sweeping accusations, one would have to present some cogent evidence to support them.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 15, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> the Anglo-Saxon adversarial approach


The Anglo-Saxons would just have hit you lot over the head with a stick for all this bickering. The Romans, Celts, Vikings and Normans would have done much the same.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

*A Modest Proposal*

People have complained on this thread about experiencing unwelcome "feelings" when reading certain ideas on urban75 or when exposed to certain posting styles.

These emotional responses include:


feeling intimidated
feeling "put off" 
feeling that the "tonalities" are wrong
feeling bored
feeling "unwelcome"


My proposal:

People's feelings are important. Posters have the right to experience only appropriate feelings when viewing urban75 material.

Therefore, 

(a) a definative list of "innapropriate feelings" should be determined by a small committee. The membership of that committee - lets call it the "Tonalities Committee" to be determined by the editor (but I nominate pooka and taranau).

(b) a new *Report to Feelings Moderator Button* should be installed. Anyone reading a post and experiencing any (or all) of the feelings mentioned above should hit the button.

(c) A new post of *Feelings Moderator* should be appointed. This person will take immediate action should the red light go off and ensure that posters entertain only the feelings deemed appropriate by the "Tonalities Committee."

(d) any poster causing feelings in other posters deemed inappropriate by the "Tonalities Committee" will be banned.


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key - Does it not bother you that people are put off this forum?

It seems to me that you are saying if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> Anna Key - Does it not bother you that people are put off this forum?


Yes. I've already said that on this thread several times. I want people to be welcomed and to feel welcome.



> It seems to me that you are saying if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.


Well you're wrong. I'm saying that within the FAQ people can post what they want, including complaining about how they "feel" when confronted by other posts.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Yes it does.


I think I should highlight a contradiction here. Post #616 by "Anna Key" is funny, while post #618 -- submitted under the same alias -- is not. Has there been a change in editorial line?


----------



## Rollem (Apr 15, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> the same people, saying the same things, over and over and over.. i think a lot of people probably dont necessarily find the clique 'intimidating', just a bit tedious..


...Zzzzzz...zzzzzzz


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> *A Modest Proposal*
> 
> (b) a new *Report to Feelings Moderator Button* should be installed. Anyone reading a post and experiencing any (or all) of the feelings mentioned above should hit the button.
> 
> ...



I fear that the feelings you describe will be very hard to undo once experienced (years of therapy probably).  It's only fair then that we take all necessary action to ensure that no one is exposed to the risk of experiencing these feelings.  

May I tentatively suggest therefore (and PLEASE let me know should you find this suggestion intimidatory/aggressive and/or unwelcoming), that the rules are modified to allow the Tonalities Committee to vet all posts before they are allowed to be displayed?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

Ol Nick said:
			
		

> I think I should highlight a contradiction here. Post #616 by "Anna Key" is funny, while post #618 -- submitted under the same alias -- is not. Has there been a change in editorial line?


Something I missed from the "Feelings Moderator" proposal. Sorry!!



> We all have the right to go round with big grins on our faces all the sodding time. Therefore, any poster who posts three posts in succession *which fail to make a majority of the "Tonalities Committee" laugh* will be banned.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

Mr BC said:
			
		

> I fear that the feelings you describe will be very hard to undo once experienced (years of therapy probably).  It's only fair then that we take all necessary action to ensure that no one is exposed to the risk of experiencing these feelings.
> 
> May I tentatively suggest therefore (and PLEASE let me know should you find this suggestion intimidatory/aggressive and/or unwelcoming), that the rules are modified to allow the Tonalities Committee to vet all posts before they are allowed to be displayed?


That all sounds very fair. 

Pooka: by agreeing here with Mr BC am I playing 'tag' with him? Is that OK? 

But if you post and say "Sure AK that's fine" wouldn't _you_ be playing 'tag' with _me?_

Two more "inappropriate U75 emotions" for Pooka's "Tonalities Committee:"

- belligerence
- emotional response experienced in third parties when two posters agree about something: otherwise known as the "Swapping Political Tracts" edict.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 15, 2004)

The only thing more sickening than bullying is when the bully then blames the victim 'its only a joke', 'dont be so sensitive' 'eggshell personalities'....


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

The only thing more sickening than a moralist is a humourless moralist.


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Yes. I've already said that on this thread several times. I want people to be welcomed and to feel welcome.



So why when people mention that they feel unwelcome here, you treat it as a joke?

I appreciate that you think some people are too sensitive and you may have a point but making them look stupid for the way they feel isn't helping.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> So why when people mention that they feel unwelcome here, you treat it as a joke?


Because it's whinging. People can post what they want subject to the FAQ. 

If someone goes outside the FAQ you ignore it, argue with them, or press the moderator button.

You cannot legislate for people's feelings. People will feel whatever they want.

The rules here are being obeyed and some people are whinging. And having sense of humour failures when their whinging is laughed at.


> I appreciate that you think some people are too sensitive and you may have a point but making them look stupid for the way they feel isn't helping.


No. They're making themselves look stupid. And then whinging some more.

This is a public bulletin board not a group encounter session in a psychiatric hospital.


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2004)

Fair comment, but I don't see it as whinging myself but genuine concerns despite the FAQ being adhered to. 

Anyway, I’ve said my bit and will like lurk on this thread and occasionally giggle at the posts I find funny.


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> This is a public bulletin board not a group encounter session in a psychiatric hospital.



Now you tell me.


----------



## zubaier (Apr 15, 2004)

god u make me cringe anna key.... think you need to get outta that there library more... its a nice warm day out there, go on, treat yaself..


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> The only thing more sickening than bullying is when the bully then blames the victim 'its only a joke', 'dont be so sensitive' 'eggshell personalities'....




Ain't that the crux of the matter sadly.

Let's take this thread - some people have made some genuine concerns known. Those who feel threatened, for whatever reason, routinely seem to adopt the following tactics:

1) Aggressively claim the moral high ground - the complainant is 'nasty,' misogynistic, a liar, a gentrifying yuppie, duplicitious in their intentions, etc. Act wounded, insult wherever necessary.
2) Belittle those complaining as having eggshell personalities. Or make it damn clear that you don't think they can't compete in intellectual terms
3) Come out with a load of diversionary and largely irrelevant gumph about free speech and your right to post. As if only you appreciate the importance
4) Oversimplify and misrepresent those who disagree with you - in this case characterising any individual with a concern as upset, or whiners.
5) Ignore any criticism - I can't possibly bear any responsibility. You're all simplistic wankers for thinking so.


For the record I'm not upset, hysterical, or even particularly angry by your posts. But I'll strongly maintain that some actions (as in the list above) make it difficult to have a welcoming forum -they're clearly not conducive to an open debate. It's more than a little routine and tiresome.




> No. They're making themselves look stupid. And then whinging some more.



Let the other posters be the judge of that eh. The words patronising and arrogant spring to mind...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> god u make me cringe anna key...


 Do you think personal attacks are an appropriate response?  Or is it one rule for you and another for everyone else?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> The words patronising and arrogant spring to mind...


 What about you, tarannau? Is it appropriate to use the very behaviour you are complaining so bitterly  about in others? Is it, in fact,  anything other than  _towering hypocrisy_?


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> What about you, tarannau? Is it appropriate to use the very behaviour you are complaining so bitterly  about in others? Is it, in fact,  anything other than  _towering hypocrisy_?



See my previous post, points 1 and 5. Check.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> See my previous post, points 1 and 4(b). Check.


And have you taken a moment to apply your accusations to your own conduct? Thought not.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 15, 2004)

Yep. I'm not a particularly argumentative or abusive poster I reckon, but feel free to disagree.

Putting me to the side for a second, are the other posters just being patronising in their concerns? Or are all these (long-standing) concerns merely guff in your opinion?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 15, 2004)

One of the people from the South London Press has asked me whether I might be interested in getting involved in writing something. Not sure what yet. My answer is yes.

I was also asked if I'm coming back here. My answer to that is: 

I'm not going back to moderating the Brixton board at u75.  I may post occasionally.  But my attitude now is: too many internet nerdy types, too white and unrepresentative, not teaching me anything. Boring. The internet - not life, not Brixton!

Anyone seen that film "Carry On Groupthink" - it's not one of the funniest,  Kenneth Williams isn't in it.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Yep. I'm not a particularly argumentative or abusive poster I reckon, but feel free to disagree.
> 
> Putting me to the side for a second, are the other posters just being patronising in their concerns? Or are all these (long-standing) concerns merely guff in your opinion?


 Who said they are merely guff? I certainly haven't.

The point, as I said before, is not that it's tough tit for new/non regular posters but that those who are complaining so bitterly about 'tonality' and the conduct of other posters have been around for ever, are as tough as old boots and are liable to dish it out as much as anyone. By that I mean posters such as yourself (and you aren't above resorting to spiteful personal attacks), newbie and pooka. 

If you don't like that sort of 'tonality', don't reinforce it. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? 

There are plenty of perfectly civilised discussions going on in this forum, such as those about social housing, street drinking and Lambeth's parks, to name just three.  

Any thread called "I am very pissed off..." is not liable to be a fluff-fest.  Neither is any thread where people pile in with deliberately antagonistic accusations of trustafarianism, nimbyism and, indeed, naive racism, as happened recently (but let's not drag all that up again  ).

If you really want people to play nice, you've got to play nice too. 

Personally, I won't be accused of making every thread around here a political slanging match because _it simply is not true.  _


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Anyone seen that film "Carry On Groupthink" - it's not one of the funniest,  Kenneth Williams isn't in it.


    

Oh sorry, was that backslapping?


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> too many internet nerdy types, too white and unrepresentative,




what should we, who currently populate this board, do to make it less white, more representative.  I asked this before but no-one had an answer.  Do you?


----------



## LDR (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> But my attitude now is: too many internet nerdy types, too white and unrepresentative, not teaching me anything.



Are we just not cool enough now?


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Who said they are merely guff? I certainly haven't.
> 
> The point, as I said before, is not that it's tough tit for new/non regular posters but that those who are complaining so bitterly about 'tonality' and the conduct of other posters have been around for ever, are as tough as old boots and are liable to dish it out as much as anyone. By that I mean posters such as yourself (and you aren't above resorting to spiteful personal attacks), newbie and pooka.




erm, if you're going to drag me into this... I asked you yesterday to justify attacking me as disingenuous, dishonest, taking potshots and misrepresenting you.  You've had plenty of time to look back through my posts, so I'd appreciate either some evidence or an apology.  O, and some evidence that I 'dish it out' would be nice as well.

I'll repeat what I said then

"the level playing field I'd like to see is one where everyone plays the ball and not the man."


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> I'm not going back to moderating the Brixton board at u75.  I may post occasionally.  But my attitude now is: too many internet nerdy types, too white and unrepresentative, not teaching me anything. Boring. The internet - not life, not Brixton!



We know, you've said it several times.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> what should we, who currently populate this board, do to make it less white, more representative.  I asked this before but no-one had an answer.  Do you?


 It's a good question. Off the top of my head, no, I don't really know. Obviously, you can't practically 'recruit' people of specific ethnicities to balance it up.  

The answer perhaps partly lies in the presence of threads like This excellent one started by reubeness about racism.  It was interessting that quite a few people immediately suggested that the thread should not be in Brixton but in Politics, to which Reubeness replied that for her, it was a Brixton issue. Damn right!   I thought it was a good example of a thread that would hopefully invite interest and comment from  non-white posters. Unfortunately, and ironically, attention got diverted from it in all the recent brouhaha and it dropped to page 2, but I intend to give it a nudge in a minute.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> erm, if you're going to drag me into this... I asked you yesterday to justify attacking me as disingenuous, dishonest, taking potshots and misrepresenting you.  You've had plenty of time to look back through my posts, so I'd appreciate either some evidence or an apology.


 I thought it was clear I wasn't levelling such  comments personally at you.  I'm sure that in real life you are as honest as this thread is long. 

But some of them do apply to your arguments. I do think that you quite often deliberately misrepresent other people's positions and arguments in order to undermine them and that is, to me,  a very underhand way of going about things and a classic example of 'playing the man'.


----------



## Baub (Apr 15, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I do think that you quite often deliberately misrepresent other people's positions and arguments in order to undermine them and that is, to me,  a very underhand way of going about things and a classic example of 'playing the man'.



I don't think so newbie - and I've actually looked at your previous posts.

Deliberately misrepresenting others positions and arguements in order to undermine them is indeed underhand (and underway)


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

So I'm not dishonest even though it's an accusation you've just happened to make more than once in response to points I've made?


Please show me examples of me misrepresenting other people's positions.  

And then perhaps explain why you regularly make inferences about what you think is my style of discussion rather than simply address the points I make. 


I'm also waiting for justification of 'dishing it out' and 'taking potshots'.


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

Baub, sorry I'm lost, are you agreeing with me or I2S?


----------



## Baub (Apr 15, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> Baub, sorry I'm lost, are you agreeing with me or I2S?



You - I can't find any evidence of what IS said and there's sooo much of that sort of acusation on this thread (this forum?) that stops things moving forward.


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

cheers, cheque in t post .


----------



## splatto (Apr 15, 2004)

*just read the whole of this thread (phew)*

Think it's a shame that PK's comments that were quoted right at the beginning werent broken down and looked at more.

Was PK racist?

Why does he perceive the crack trade in Brixton to be mostly black/jamacian?

Certainly most of the victims of the crack trade shuffling round the Stockwell end of Brixton seem to be portugeuse/west indian.... Don't like seeing folkz exploited and messed up....

Thou' his comments were slagged off by hatboy no one dived into the content in any meaningful way.

I think it's basically wrong that anyone moderate their own thread. the moderator was antagonist and encouraged personal attacks. yep, u need a break mate...

having said that i'm entirely new to this board and hatboy seems to have some respect around here so i hope i can witness the reason for that respect in the future...

cheers


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 15, 2004)

Welcome.  

Good point about race and crack, which illustrates why it's not being cliquey and elitist to put somebody right if they don't live in the area and they have made false assumptions about it.  It would be absurd to take the assumptions of an occasional Brixton visitor over the experiences of people who live there.  That's not snobbery. It's common sense.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

Welcome splatto.   




			
				Baub said:
			
		

> Deliberately misrepresenting others positions and arguements in order to undermine them is indeed underhand (and underway)


Here’s an example of misrepresentation by Pooka. I don’t mind, particularly, because it concerned a minor matter and think he probably just made a mistake.

Also, it’s not against the FAQ. Pooka can misrepresent who he wants, when he wants, on any matter he wants. 

At root, those who pursue an argument via misrepresentation only harm themselves. They get caught, as I’ve caught Pooka in this instance, and they lose credibility. Being caught misrepresenting has other effects too.

Me at 602


> I've read it (the FAQ) before but can't find the bugger.



Me at 607


> I've found the FAQ. It's quite a funny document. I don't disagree with any of it. There's no mention of an editorial line for any forum, over and above the FAQ...



Pooka at 612


> Anna: Glad to hear you've got round to reading the FAQ after all this time - you were remarkably well versed earlier in the thread (about the relationship between the FAQ and an editorial line) *fo (sic) someone who hadn't*



[My emphasis}

Broken down Pooka’s misrepresentation is as follows:

I posted, in unambiguous language, that I’d read the FAQ before but couldn’t find it. I found it eventually and reported this at 607.

Pooka then misrepresented me at 612 saying I hadn’t read the FAQ. Perhaps he missed 602? In which case he didn’t knowingly misrepresent me.

What is misrepresentation? It is a type of lying. So if Pooka misrepresented me deliberately Pooka is a type of liar.

As I say, none of this matters particularly. It’s simply a good, clear example of misrepresentation.

But the thing about misrepresentation is if someone does it on a minor matter - such as the above example - you’ve got to watch them in case they do it on a major matter. An example would be misrepresenting someone as a racist when they’re not.

Any response Pooka? You misrepresented me. Did you do so knowingly - were you telling a type of lie - or was it due to incompetence, i.e. failing to read 602? 

I strongly suspect the latter as I don’t believe Pooka is a liar. But you see the sort of trouble misrepresentation can cause? Best avoided old sport.   

Coppers traditionally did it before PACE stopped them or, at least, slowed them down. It was called “verballing someone up.” Many, many people went to prison after a good verballing.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

zubaier said:
			
		

> god u make me cringe anna key.... think you need to get outta that there library more... its a nice warm day out there, go on, treat yaself..


You’re right. I might then become more like you. So full off fresh air that I learn to respond to arguments with personal attacks.

Have you considered spending a bit more time in a library? Perhaps just on rainy days?


----------



## Mr BC (Apr 15, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Let's take this thread - some people have made some genuine concerns known. Those who feel threatened, for whatever reason, routinely seem to adopt the following tactics:
> 
> 1) Aggressively claim the moral high ground - the complainant is 'nasty,' misogynistic, a liar, a gentrifying yuppie, duplicitious in their intentions, etc. Act wounded, insult wherever necessary.
> 2) Belittle those complaining as having eggshell personalities. Or make it damn clear that you don't think they can't compete in intellectual terms
> ...



You know, all these allegations are fine.  Water of a duck's back so far as I'm concerned.  But, personally, I would NEVER make such sweeping accusations without some examples. 

I think in your case Tarannau they also sit oddly with your post yesterday about IntoStella's forensic skills.  That was just gratuitous abuse really wasn't it?  Just stirring the pot?  Which is fine, except then you get all holier-than-thou.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 15, 2004)

No one's tried on this thread to analyse what on-line bullying is. I'll have a stab at it.

****




			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> The only thing more sickening than bullying is when the bully then blames the victim 'its only a joke', 'dont be so sensitive' 'eggshell personalities'....



There’s an extensive piece here on on-line bullying.

My dictionary has a shorter definition:



> A person who hurts, persecutes or intimidates a weaker or smaller person. (Collins English Dictionary, 3rd edition).



There have been accusations on this thread of bullying. These have been what I call ‘snide’ accusations i.e. indirect and un-argued (Belushi's post being a good example).

No accuser has produced what I call an argument, i.e.



> X poster is a bully
> 
> Here is an example of text written by X poster which I claim is a bullying piece of text.
> 
> ...



Snide, un-argued accusation is _precisely_ the behaviour of a bully. Which is ironic, but unsurprising, as most bullies, in my experience, are cowards.

The last thing a bully wants is an up-front argument following the standard formation of _claim_ and _evidence._

Instead they prefer un-argued formulations followed by flouncing or claims to be ‘bored’ or to have ‘better things to do’ or complaints about injured 'feelings.'

In other words a bully will do anything other than produce a reasoned argument within the FAQ.

What do you do with such people? I think there are three choices:

1. Ignore them
2. Argue with them
3. Make fun of them

1. is best. The most they can do is complain about “feeling” ignored. Just ignore that too. They’ll stop whinnying after a while.

2. is more dangerous. If your argument is sound, or makes them think about things they’d rather not think about, they may complain about their “feelings” again. 

They may “feel” intimidated or bullied or unwelcome or bored or consider the “tonalities” to be incorrect.

3. is even more dangerous. They _hate_ being laughed at. But then all bullies do. Which is an excellent reason for laughing at them. They’d prefer to be beating you up behind the bike shed.

The way to avoid being a bully, or feeling bullied, or being bullied, is to engage, within the FAQ, in reasoned argument. Everything else is so much horse shit.

Such as Belushi's post quoted above. No offense.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 15, 2004)

Splatto - PK's posts have been three years of nastiness. There's more to it than just the post I was angry about at the top of this thread.

Newbie - What can be done? Well, "we" shouldn't do anything much to get black people to come here. It's not up to "us" exactly. People look at the level of debate, see that it's nearly all white people in Brixton forum (you can tell from the general flavour), see that comments like "99% of the crack trade is Jamaican" (and worse) are mostly unchallenged (including by the editor) and think "I can't be bothered, nothing to learn there".

Also, there have been better patches, when more mix of people have passed by here, but while the level is as it mostly is I have felt unable to recommend this place to non-white friends. Especially recently. As the moderator of this forum, but without the abilty to ban arseholes like PK (Mike/Editor likes him), I've not been happy to present this as something I'm responsible for.  Do I want sussed friends, black, white or whatever, thinking "oh that's Paul's (my real name) thing is it, that's where he's at, I see".

Well it's not where I'm at. Not anymore.

I think I'm done now.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> One of the people from the South London Press has asked me whether I might be interested in getting involved in writing something. Not sure what yet. My answer is yes.



  Actually a rather good idea if you wrote for SLP on Brixton.Alternative views dont always get space there.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> No one's tried on this thread to analyse what on-line bullying is. I'll have a stab at it.
> 
> ****
> 
> ...



((Anna))  You've spent so much time around politicians you've become one


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2004)

splatto said:
			
		

> Think it's a shame that PK's comments that were quoted right at the beginning werent broken down and looked at more.
> 
> Was PK racist?
> 
> ...



  I  did break down pks post and look at it carefully-he did not reply in a genuine fashion.Its been pointed out to me his web persona is not like his real one(Ive never met him so cant tell).So he basically likes to get people going without entering into a serious debate.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Well, as regards 'still not', I do have a life and do need to earn a living Gramsci!
> 
> I have made an assertion about two disparate views that have held sway on this Forum for the past year and the consequent dynamic that has ensued.
> 
> ...



  1)Mr BC has been posting up on this thread for a while.You have replied fully to other posters like Anna but not Mr BC.

   2)We have all got other commitments.I just feel as this issue(which I didnt start on this thread) concerns me Im making an effort to post up on it.

   3)Having different politcal viewpoints/attitudes to life in Brixton is one thing.Accusing those you disagree with of bullying or constraining the debate is what I object to.

   4)I have not leapt to Annas defence on an "editorial line".I have praised his post on EP Thompson- actually an argument that you dont seem to follow-saying that Anna was being disingenous.

   5)Your split between those who supposedly support an editorial line and thgose who dont is revealing-its roughly a political split.

       Anna,Gramsci,Jezza,Pickman(whats he done or said?),Hatboy,Intostella

       and Rabbie,Newbie,Domski,Fanta

   On the threads you sight the discussion is often (but not always )split between these two groups.I dont see the problem with that-seems to me a wide range of opinions in this group of people.Its not one poster on their own getting a hard time.From what Ive seen of these posters(except Pickman who I dont know well on the boards) they can give as good as they get.So whats the problem?

  6)The argument trotted out on a regular basis is that new people are put off.That this has been happening in the last year-with all the arguments on "gentrification" and the development of a supposed group with an "editorial line" they enforce by bullying or "intellectual" intimidation(according to one post here not Pookas I think).Well Ive been thinking about this today.I remember when I first came on the boards I got a whole load of stick from some posters for what I posted up.I remember being referred to as the "stinking corpse of Eurocommunism" for example.Hardly very welcoming.

  I think its a myth to say in effect that these boards are welcoming in the past but in the last year its degenerated.

  What has happened is that a lot of debate has gone on which is argumentative and sometimes fractous.

  Mr BC made a good point when he said that on here,unlike in the witness box(or any social situation-the pub for example)you have plenty of time to answer your critics.

   7)Your distinction between two groups is too rigid.Those you mention (except Pickman)I know on the boards and they dont have a rigid party line from what I can see.

  8)What I really object to is that you distinguish the groups on the basis of who defends freedom of speech and who does not.This does smack of that old one where liberal individualists are the  true defenders of freedom versus the lefty "collectivists" who hold to a "line".Reminds me of Isiah Berlin.


----------



## pooka (Apr 15, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Here’s an example of misrepresentation by Pooka.


 etc 

No, it wasn't my intention to misrepresent you. I took the burden of meaning from your second post ("I've found the FAQ. It's quite funny....") to mean you hadn't read it or had forgotten it. Why else have to find it first? Reasonable enough line to make a tease on (there was a smiley jobby at the end).

And your earlier post - well maybe it was one of the other FAQ's you were talking about - there is a whole string of them. Nonetheless, if you feel I've damaged your reputation, please accept my apology.

But it is telling that, rather than simply posting "Oi pooka, I had read the FAQ - see post 6xxx. I merely had to find them in order to [insert reason]", you have to treat us to this Perry Mason bit _and_ inflammatory stuff about "found out", "liar", "incompetent". I think it well illustrates the sort of posting style people have been on about - it functions to generate conflict rather than resolution.

Regarding your analyis of bullying, who are you saying are the bullies? Am I bullying you Anna?


Re: Pooka's "Tonalities Committee:"

Anna, I can't help but feel your trying to shift the argument onto narrower ground which you think you can win by derision. You appear to be saying that this is all about whingers who can't take a joke or a bit of cut and thrust. But that clearly has not been what people are saying. 

The contention is that there has been a style of posting on Forum which is inflamatory and conflictual by being personal, harrassing, insulting, condescending, beligerent and that this puts people of for one of a number of reasons - of which hurt feelings or intimidation are only part, and may only be on the part of some posters. Disgust, irritation, lack of time (inflamatory threads consume a lot of time for little return), tedium, exasperation will put off others. 

Perhaps we should resolve to put a stop to it - no names, no pack drill - just each to improve our posting style in the best ways we see fit, having refelected on all that is in the thread?

*Perhaps also we should set a voluntary guillotine for this thread - say Saturday night?*


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 15, 2004)

I thought your contention was that "debate was being constrained" for more political reasons as well(an editorial line).Thats why you were saying that you are defending "freedom of speech".


----------



## newbie (Apr 15, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Newbie - What can be done? Well, "we" shouldn't do anything much to get black people to come here. It's not up to "us" exactly. People look at the level of debate, see that it's nearly all white people in Brixton forum (you can tell from the general flavour), see that comments like "99% of the crack trade is Jamaican" (and worse) are mostly unchallenged (including by the editor) and think "I can't be bothered, nothing to learn there".




Right, I understand your point & largely sympathise with it.  It's familiar... almost any group I've ever been involved with has had similar discussions, both about race and the parallel ones (men/women, straight/gay, middle/working class...).

I'm not really sure where to look for a solution: challenging the loud, dissonant voice with an agenda merely adds to the noise of white men yapping (as well as being utterly pointless and very wearing); OTOH even when a group of white, educated, straight, m/c men come over all PC and decide to shut their gobs, another group, almost indistinguishable despite their own claims, jumps in. 

So what to do except press on, rather hoping that no-one feels excluded because of who or what they are- bored maybe, but not excluded.


----------



## pooka (Apr 15, 2004)

Gramsci (post 661) said:
			
		

> (1)Mr BC has been posting up on this thread for a while.You have replied fully to other posters like Anna .........



1. I think I've replied about "evidence".

2. Indeed - but I think I might take 4 hrs out!

3. It is my belief that posting styles which could be described as bullying or personal or harrassing or whatever - do indeed constrain debate because (1) eventually a proportion of people will cease to be arsed to post and (2) a disporportionate amount of time is spent with people refuting accusations; "I'm not a liar/yuppie/liberal/labourite/I don't have a hidden agenda etc, etc". Or in school playgorund type yaboo exchanges.

4. Phew, Gramsci! Did some one mention 'condescending' a bit back? Anna was using EP THompson's notion of the heretical voice to support the idea that Urban75 should be a place for the 'heretical voice' (fine by me) but that for that to be so (by implication) an 'editorial line' had to be maintained. That's why he feared the implications of hatboy's departure. 
You in turn praised this as his 'best post' But maybe you don't support the notion of an 'editorial line 'as set out by Anna?

5. I'm not so sure about the 'political' split - I'd simply don't know enough about each persons politics. I'd say a clearer split would be along the lines of "Do you belief that the future of Brixton hinges on the fate of the Bicycle Shop"  (I exagerate, but you see what I mean). 

6. Well, I agree with you arguments here have always been rumbustuous - when I first joined I had a run in with The Black Hand ("poor little pooka"). But I got no sense, as a newcomer, of an orthodoxy who's transgression would bring down the wrath of all the old hands. AS I've said above, I think the putting-newcomers off thing is only part of the issue.

7. I agree. I think the whole idea of putting people in water tight groups is dodgy, people are a bit more dimensional and variable than that, but I was challanged to name names (by you ) so I did.

8.






			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> Im asking you to name the "tag team" who are supposed to be "gagging" other posters.Also I want to now who the "others" are who are "fighting back".


(post 609)




			
				Gramsci said:
			
		

> What I really object to is that you distinguish the groups on the basis of who defends freedom of speech and who does not



Ah, so it was a trick question!? Behind me, Satan!  (meant humourously)


----------



## JWH (Apr 15, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Do you think personal attacks are an appropriate response?






			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> This is a public bulletin board not a group encounter session in a psychiatric hospital.


Interesting points, well made.


----------



## Domski (Apr 15, 2004)

LOL! This thread is now too difficult to post on! Bollocks to intimidation 

If there's one thing I'd say on the whole misrepresentation thing, it's that I was misrepresented as a bigot to undermine what I was saying on another thread. This was based on a couple of pretty irrelevant and off the cuff remarks which in the context of the _serious_ mudslinging that can happen I thought were just a teensy weensy bit of an overreaction... But that's my opinion... and it's aqua under the bridge... 

This thread is now a set text for an MA (Hons) in online arguing if there were such a thing 

I do think it's shame that Hatboy doesn't wish to be part of this anymore but I can sort of see his point.


----------



## LDR (Apr 16, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Splatto - PK's posts have been three years of nastiness. There's more to it than just the post I was angry about at the top of this thread.
> .........
> 
> As the moderator of this forum, but without the abilty to ban arseholes like PK (Mike/Editor likes him), I've not been happy to present this as something I'm responsible for.  Do I want sussed friends, black, white or whatever, thinking "oh that's Paul's (my real name) thing is it, that's where he's at, I see".



I personally like PK, but I don’t agree with everything he posts and have told him so face to face.  In fact I’ve found some of his posts very offensive and I’m at stage where I largely ignore his posts because I don’t know what he really believes and what is a wind up.  

However, I understand exactly where you are coming from Hatboy, as a moderator you take a certain amount of responsibility of what people post in your forum and I can see why you felt the need to stop moderating.  

For what’s its worth PK’s comment that "99% of the crack trade is Jamaican" I thought was such a sweeping generalisation it wasn’t worth challenging and as I mentioned above I don’t take PK’s posts seriously.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> No, it wasn't my intention to misrepresent you... please accept my apology.


Accepted.   



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> But it is telling that...etc


Deliberate misrepresentation is a form of lying. I don't like liars and think they should be exposed. I accept you didn't do it deliberately.



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Regarding your analyis of bullying, who are you saying are the bullies? Am I bullying you Anna?


No. I claimed that Belushi deployed a recognisable bullying technique. Not all my posts are about you!

I don't think you're a bully pooka. Unlike Belushi you produce arguments not insults.



			
				pooka said:
			
		

> The contention is... etc


I accept all that. It's what we've been arguing about isn't it?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*I claimed that Belushi deployed a recognisable bullying technique. * 

Course I did.  Keep blaming your vicitims Anna, after all its not your fault that they have 'eggshell' personlities is it


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Because it's whinging. People can post what they want subject to the FAQ.
> 
> If someone goes outside the FAQ you ignore it, argue with them, or press the moderator button.
> 
> ...



I like it when you get so frustrated that people dare to disagree with you that you start to shout!


----------



## pooka (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Deliberate misrepresentation is a form of lying. I don't like liars and think they should be exposed. I accept you didn't do it deliberately.



Anna: In using the inflamatory language you did, and now seeking to justify it, you're effectively saying "Pooka, I thought for a minute there you might be a liar or an incompetent, and that I might just have 'found your out', so I had to do a bit of grandstanding to make sure everyone knew it". 

Given that we've both been posting here for 2 years and ought to have somje view of each others honesty/competence, do you not think those two posts are insulting? How does that further debate?

By the way, why _did _ you have to find the FAQ before you could comment on them?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> LOL! This thread is now too difficult to post on! Bollocks to intimidation .


Er. 

Anyone for a huggle?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *Keep blaming your vicitims Anna, after all its not your fault that they have 'eggshell' personlities is it  *


*
Are you really my victim? Oh dear.

Yes. 

I'M TALKING TO YOU!

*


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Er.
> 
> Anyone for a huggle?



Are you insulting my intelligence? OUTRAGEOUS


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Are you really my victim? Oh dear.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I'M TALKING TO YOU!



Yes, straight out of your arse old man


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: In using the inflamatory language you did, and now seeking to justify it, you're effectively saying "Pooka, I thought for a minute there you might be a liar or an incompetent, and that I might just have 'found your out', so I had to do a bit of grandstanding to make sure everyone knew it".
> 
> Given that we've both been posting here for 2 years and ought to have somje view of each others honesty/competence, do you not think those two posts are insulting? How does that further debate?
> 
> By the way, why did you have to find the FAQ before you could comment on them?


Pooka. I caught you misrepresenting me. I explained precisely how. You said sorry. I accepted it wasn't deliberate. How about leaving it there?

The secret is: _don't misrepresent_




			
				Intostella said:
			
		

> Er.
> 
> Anyone for a huggle?



((((((Pooka))))))

(((((Belushi)))))

((((((((All intimidated victims on bulletin boards everywhere)))))))


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*((((((((All intimidated victims on bulletin boards everywhere)))))))* 

Youre a good man Anna, so your going to give up the bullying, lies and misrepresentation for good then?

Im pleased, cos I actually agree with most of the political things you say, but your style when challenged was making you look like a bitter old bootboy


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Yes, straight out of your arse old man


AK is  quite a bit younger than some of the other people in this discussion. Or did you mean ''old man'' in a sort of Colonel Cholmondeley-Bolmondeley way? I hope that was what it was meant to be, rather than another personal attack.  Though I hadn't really pictured you as a posho.


----------



## newbie (Apr 16, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> 5)Your split between those who supposedly support an editorial line and thgose who dont is revealing-its roughly a political split.
> 
> Anna,Gramsci,Jezza,Pickman(whats he done or said?),Hatboy,Intostella
> 
> ...




D'you think?

As I've said before, I'd suggest it was more of a split on subcultural lines. I suspect my politics are closer to people in your group than to members of what you think is mine.  But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to agree with anybody about anything.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have the impression that most or all of  have been known to  drink together in the Albert, natter together in the Lounge, laugh together with Vic, and maybe gathered together at Cooltan, and have off-board friends in common.  Is that so terribly wide of the mark?  apologies if it is, it's an impression I've gained from these threads.

For the record I met Pooka once, at a U75 picnic a couple of years ago where we chatted for maybe 5 minutes; I've never met any of the others in what you claim is my group.  Or PM'd them.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Coppers traditionally did it before PACE stopped them or, at least, slowed them down. It was called “verballing someone up.” Many, many people went to prison after a good verballing.



I didn't.  Loads of my colleagues didn't.

Sounds like some sort of -ism to me.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> your style when challenged was making you look like a bitter old bootboy


 Oh look, he did it again, twice in two posts.  

Belushi: attacking people on the grounds of their age is not only against the FAQ but also  shows you to be precisely the sort of odious thug you are accusing others of being. Don't. do. it.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I didn't.  Loads of my colleagues didn't.
> 
> Sounds like some sort of -ism to me.


I apologise. You're right and I'm wrong. I should have said "Some coppers..."


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> AK is  quite a bit younger than some of the other people in this discussion. Or did you mean ''old man'' in a sort of Colonel Cholmondeley-Bolmondeley way? I hope that was what it was meant to be, rather than another personal attack.  Though I hadn't really pictured you as a posho.



For fear of resurrecting old arguments...

This is the kind of reply that you use too much IS... NOT THAT I'M ONE TO JUDGE... it's just an observation... I don't think there's any genuinely offensive 'ageist' connotation here in exactly the way as the throwaway remark's I once said to you weren't 'sexist'... honest. 

Making argumentative capital out of such supposedly 'sexist' and 'ageist' statements usually does the argument that's in progress NO GOOD at all... it usually tends to utterly derail them to the stage where all valid points are drowned out by shouts of 'BIGOT', 'CHAUVINIST' and 'MISOYGINIST'

My 2p... I'm hoping not to be shouted at for saying it - it just seems to happen on U75 (not just the Brixton forum) rather a lot. I can appreciate that there are times when it's utterly right to label someone as such, but not as often as is seems to happen round these here parts


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

These damn "huggles" just aint working. I thought this thread was all about people's "feelings." 

Try again:

(((((Belushi)))))

Aren't "huggles" the correct response? But if they won't argue and won't respond to "huggles" what's left?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*Belushi: attacking people on the grounds of their age is not only against the FAQ but also shows you to be precisely the sort of odious thug you are accusing others of being. Don't. do. it.* 

Fair play, I didnt mean it as an insult but if it was taken that way my apologies  

'Dont.do.it'  like it IS


----------



## pooka (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka. I caught you misrepresenting me. I explained precisely how. You said sorry. I accepted it wasn't deliberate. How about leaving it there?
> 
> The secret is: _don't misrepresent_



Anna: It isn't unequivocally clear that I mis-represented you - you actually posted confusing posts, in the way I indicated. Nonetheless, I apologised for any unintended 'damage to your reputation' - a different matter (I let it pass that you quoted a my apology in a selective way).

But you are unprepared to admit that your response - peppered with "liar", "incompetent", "found out" etc - was unnecessarily grandstanding, insulting and nflamatory 

What you're saying is:

"If I believe I can claim someone is misrepresenting me, intentionally or otherwise, I shall 'call them out' and give them the option of recanting their 'incompetence' or admitting that they are 'liars'. And I shall do that even when I've posted rather bizarrely conflicting posts in the first place. I'll do that rather than simply point out what I consider to be the error of their post"

Don't you think there's something "inflamatory and conflictual by being personal, harrassing, insulting, condescending, beligerent" in that?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> These damn "huggles" just aint working. I thought this thread was all about people's "feelings."
> 
> Try again:
> 
> ...



[B](((Anna)))[/B]

(This doesnt mean were dating or anything  )


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna...etc


Pooka: I caught you misrepresenting me. You're now wriggling.

_Don't misrepresent and there'll be no need to wriggle._


----------



## pooka (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh look, he did it again, twice in two posts.
> 
> Belushi: attacking people on the grounds of their age is not only against the FAQ but also  shows you to be precisely the sort of odious thug you are accusing others of being. Don't. do. it.



Oh, do get down off that high horse i2s   

Young Anna has referred to me as 'old Pooka', or 'that old subversive Red Pooka' in more posts than I could shake my zimmer frame at. It's no big deal


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> Making argumentative capital out of such supposedly 'sexist' and 'ageist' statements usually does the argument that's in progress NO GOOD at all... it usually tends to utterly derail them to the stage where all valid points are drowned out by shouts of 'BIGOT', 'CHAUVINIST' and 'MISOYGINIST'


It's really not a matter of making argumentative capital.  I don't feel the need to make argumentative capital. It is simply not on to attack anyone on the grounds of  gender, age, sexuality, race, disability and so on.  That is enshrined in the posting rules and when it happens it should be challenged.  It invariably happens when somebody's arguments are getting dismantled. Out comes the personal abuse. Like clockwork. 

And who is shouting? Are you going to start calling me ''shrill' and "strident'' in a minute?  

As for when such criticisms are valid or not, I don't think the person who is dishing out the personal abuse is really the best judge of that.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Young Anna has referred to me as 'old Pooka', or 'that old subversive Red Pooka' in more posts than I could shake my zimmer frame at. It's no big deal


But it's a matter of _tonality, _ my dear pooka.  

You know AK and you like each other (at least I have always assumed so). If he calls you 'old pooka' then it is  certainly in the Cholmondeley-Bolmondeley sense. It is entirely different to someone resorting to calling him an ''old bootboy'' to divert attention from the shakiness of their argument. 

You know what a toff he is!  And anyway, he's not much younger than you.


----------



## pooka (Apr 16, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka: I caught you misrepresenting me. You're now wriggling.
> 
> _Don't misrepresent and there'll be no need to wriggle._



Anna: Sadly, you're demonstrating just how little you've taken on board from this thread. What a shame - especially since it means you're likely to carry on in just the same fashion.

The events are. 

1.You put up a post which could be interpreted as meaning that you had not read the FAQ ("I've found the FAQ...They are funny"), about which I teased you (clearly indicated by the smiley jobby).

2.You've pronounce yourself the aggrieved victim of misrepresentation, and insultingly grandstand around it, to distract from losing the main argument - namely that you believed there to be legitimacy to the idea of an 'editorial line' which had to be maintained, by some unspecified means.

3. Nonetheless, I offered you an apology for any injury you may have suffered from my tease (NOT for misrepresentation - truth is I don't know whether or not you had read the FAQ).

4. But you can't bring your self to admit that calling another poster a liar or an incompetent is insulting and inflammatory.

Speaks volumes.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*But it's a matter of tonality, my dear pooka.  * 

or of an eggshell personlaity maybe, theres a lot of 'em about


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*It is entirely different to someone resorting to calling him an ''old bootboy'' to divert attention from the shakiness of their argument. * 

Where did I call anyone an 'old bootboy?'


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It's really not a matter of making argumentative capital.  I don't feel the need to make argumentative capital. It is simply not on to attack anyone on the grounds of  gender, age, sexuality, race, disability and so on.  That is enshrined in the posting rules and when it happens it should be challenged.  It invariably happens when somebody's arguments are getting dismantled. Out comes the personal abuse. Like clockwork.
> 
> And who is shouting? Are you going to start calling me ''shrill' and "strident'' in a minute?
> 
> As for when such criticisms are valid or not, I don't think the person who is dishing out the personal abuse is really the best judge of that.



I'm not dishing out any personal abuse - I'm making an observation and I certainly haven't said 'shrill' or 'strident'...!!

If I've misjudged you I apologise but you strike me as being fairly thick skinned when it comes to online arguments so when a fairly irrelevant BUT potentially (IMO) 'sexist' (or whatever) comment is made you jump all over it and the rest of the argument is forgotten in favour of a tangential (and often nasty) conversation about what a 'bigot' such and such sounds like.

I just think it's a bit OTT that's all and it happens far too much throughout U75 - not just in this forum 

... this really isn't a personal attack, or at least I hope not, I like to think of it as more of a 'directional observation'


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *It is entirely different to someone resorting to calling him an ''old bootboy'' to divert attention from the shakiness of their argument. *
> 
> Where did I call anyone an 'old bootboy?'






			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> your style when challenged was making you look like a bitter old bootboy


 Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. The derogatory intention was clear and AK's age, or anyone else's, is not fair game.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

*Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. The derogatory intention was clear and AK's age, or anyone else's, is not fair game.* 

No, your just deliberately misinterpreting me, what a surprise  

Or perhaps you just have an eggshell personlaity.  You can get help you know.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> If I've misjudged you I apologise but you strike me as being fairly thick skinned when it comes to online arguments so when a fairly irrelevant BUT potentially (IMO) 'sexist' (or whatever) comment is made you jump all over it and the rest of the argument is forgotten in favour of a tangential (and often nasty) conversation about what a 'bigot' such and such sounds like.


 That's because politically it's something I feel strongly about. I believe  such behaviour must be challenged consistently, even if the person on the receiving end at any particular time (myself or AK, for example) happens to have a tough hide. 

I can't agree about arguments getting derailed. I don't think that happened on the thread you're referring to. It was more of a side skirmish. 


> I just think it's a bit OTT that's all and it happens far too much throughout U75 - not just in this forum


 That's because a lot of of other people all over the boards obviously feel the same way, but above all it is because it is the central plank of the board's posting rules. (No pun intended  ). 

No personal attack inferred.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. The derogatory intention was clear and AK's age, or anyone else's, is not fair game.*
> 
> No, your just deliberately misinterpreting me, what a surprise
> 
> Or perhaps you just have an eggshell personlaity.  You can get help you know.


Ah yes. Sarcasm. That's always good for the tonality.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Ah yes. Sarcasm. That's always good for the tonality.



Better than lies


----------



## newbie (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. The derogatory intention was clear and AK's age, or anyone else's, is not fair game.




I asked you yesterday to justify various attacks on me, including 'dish it out', but sadly got no reply.  If ageism is such a concern, how about justifying "been around for ever" and "tough as old boots".


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> That's because politically it's something I feel strongly about. I believe  such behaviour must be challenged consistently, even if the person on the receiving end at any particular time (myself or AK, for example) happens to have a tough hide.
> 
> I can't agree about arguments getting derailed. I don't think that happened on the thread you're referring to. It was more of a side skirmish.   That's because a lot of of other people all over the boards obviously feel the same way, but above all it is because it is the central plank of the board's posting rules. (No pun intended  ).
> 
> No personal attack inferred.



I think you can sometimes be a _bit_ too hasty but I accept all of that, fair enough


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> I asked you yesterday to justify various attacks on me, including 'dish it out', but sadly got no reply.  If ageism is such a concern, how about justifying "been around for ever" and "tough as old boots".


 Now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. 
1) I was not referring specifically to you, but that doesn't matter because
2) I was talking about people being u75 veterans, many of whom are a hell of a lot younger than me
3) 'Tough as old boots' is merely a turn of phrase. It refers to toughness, not to age. Did you do syntax at school? Is it ageist towards boots?  Shit! I'm a boot-oppressor! 

You're clearly  far better at this sort of thing than I am, newbie.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Better than lies


 Better than _desperate_ baiting, too.


----------



## newbie (Apr 16, 2004)

It was aimed squarely at me.

It's interesting that when belushi was accused of ageism, not on the basis of what s/he actually said but of the 'derogatory intent' behind the words, s/he immediately apologised.

attacking people on the grounds of their age is not only against the FAQ but also shows you to be precisely the sort of poster you are accusing others of being. Don't. do. it.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Here's an earlier newbie post. Bear in mind that newbie is not at all a newbie (I mean in the Urban75 sense  ) and skirmishes regularly in the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of P&P. 






			
				newbie said:
			
		

> I think it's intimidation, or bullying, that makes me pull well over 50% of the posts I start to write.  I anticipate that *I* will be insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked. I don't want that, so I don't post.


 You have presented no evidence to back this up. You claim you are too frightenend to post. I find this deeply disingenuous and to be a nasty, underhand misrepresentation of the facts and of other posters.

"I was going to say something but I'm just too scared". It's a win-win position, isn't it?  

That fact is, if you come out with complete crap, you will get picked up on it. That is not bullying.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Better than _desperate_ baiting, too.



IS: I caught you misrepresenting me. You're now wriggling.

_Don't misrepresent and there'll be no need to wriggle._


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> It was aimed squarely at me.
> 
> It's interesting that when belushi was accused of ageism, not on the basis of what s/he actually said but of the 'derogatory intent' behind the words, s/he immediately apologised.
> 
> attacking people on the grounds of their age is not only against the FAQ but also shows you to be precisely the sort of poster you are accusing others of being. Don't. do. it.


You really didn't do syntax at school, did you? 

I said you had a tough hide and were a u75 veteran. If you persist in trying  to make into an ageist attack on you them I'm afraid you're going to make yourself look extremely eccentric.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Newbie and belushi, your little tag team is playing havoc with the tonality.   

It's fantastic -- you pontificate about other people's conduct and then you do exactly the things you are accusing others of doing. Utter hypocrisy.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> IS: I caught you misrepresenting me. You're now wriggling.
> 
> _Don't misrepresent and there'll be no need to wriggle._


 No, you are baiting because you have no argument. It's the only weapon you have and it's a pretty damp squib. Show me where I misrepresented you. Go on.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: Sadly, you're demonstrating just how little you've taken on board from this thread. What a shame - especially since it means you're likely to carry on in just the same fashion...


Pooka you old subversive you. You're forgetting, conveniently, post 602, which reads:



			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> I've read it (the FAQ) before but can't find the bugger.


Why are you forgetting, conveniently, post 602? Not *more* misrepresentation, surely? Not after we've had *"huggles?"*

All was clearly explained at post 653.

Pooka: Sadly, you're demonstrating just how little you've taken on board from this thread after having been caught misrepresenting once, with your trousers clearly around your ankles.

What a shame - especially since it means you're likely to carry on in just the same fashion.

Misrepresentation is a form of lying. It's also a waste of time. If you do it to me I'll catch you and expose you.


----------



## Belushi (Apr 16, 2004)

Belushi said:
			
		

> *Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. The derogatory intention was clear and AK's age, or anyone else's, is not fair game.*
> 
> No, your just deliberately misinterpreting me, what a surprise
> 
> Or perhaps you just have an eggshell personlaity.  You can get help you know.



Here, *Don't split hairs over the fact that you didn't say in as many words ''you are an old bootboy''. * 

I didnt accuse Anna of being an old bootboy, but why let the truth get int he way of you being right


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

LOL! One of these days someone's going to hit the reply button to find that they've replied to a thread that's been mysteriously deleted...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 16, 2004)

*ONLY HUGGLES CAN SAVE THIS THREAD!!

((((((((Domski ))))))))))) *


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

Hatboy would never have allowed "huggles."


----------



## newbie (Apr 16, 2004)

I didn't claim I was too frightened to post, why suggest I did?  

I said I didn't want to be "insulted or belittled- not my views debated, but my personality, and who I am, attacked." 

That's not at all the same thing.

I spend time here because I want to discuss issues with other people who have different perspectives and experiences.  I don't want to spend my time having my personality attacked, thanks very much, it's not enjoyable.  Nor do I want to spend my time attacking other people for who they are or for their personality.  

But having misconstructed my post to mean something it didn't say, that I was frightened, you've taken that as an opportunity to accuse me of being "deeply disingenuous and to be a nasty, underhand".  Why?  What has your assessment of my personality to do with anything?

This is why I deconstructed your post, er yesterday, the day before?.  It consisted of little or no attempt to take on the arguments, but a stream of attacks on me.  Since then I've queried further attacks, not on what I say, but on who I am to say it.

I'm not keen on insults.  When I quoted your own words back at you just now I took out the insult.  I'll quote some more:

_It invariably happens when somebody's arguments are getting dismantled. Out comes the personal abuse. Like clockwork.

As for when such criticisms are valid or not, I don't think the person who is dishing out the personal abuse is really the best judge of that.
_


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> *ONLY HUGGLES CAN SAVE THIS THREAD!!
> 
> ((((((((Domski ))))))))))) *



I hate to put on my judgemental hat here but who ever came up with the concept of the huggle should be hung, drawn and quartered. They're rubbish and call for nihilistic moderating on a grand scale


----------



## Voley (Apr 16, 2004)

If you're still lurking, hatboy, would you PM me your email address, please?

I know I don't live round the corner any more but I'd still like to keep in touch.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 16, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> I hate to put on my judgemental hat here but who ever came up with the concept of the huggle should be hung, drawn and quartered. They're rubbish and call for nihilistic moderating on a grand scale


Watch it!!

Editor has now received hundreds - _thousands???_ - of emails from "huggle" lovers, claiming their "feelings" were hurt by your post.

Domski, with a single ill-thought out post, has:

- "put off" hundreds from posting on the Brixton Forum
- intimidated thousands of good, decent, Brixtonians
- been grossly "belligerent" 
- been _the most appalling bully_ 

Cut a "huggle-lover" does he not bleed?

Wrong "tonality" Domski!!

((((((Taranau))))

And could you please use more exclamation marks in your posts?!! In a breathless sort of way!! It's so intimidating otherwise!!!!


(((((*"Huggle" lovers*))))

(((((*Domski* in case you're "put off" by this post))))))))

((((*Mike* for having to answer 10,000 emails from infuritated, hurt, intimidated, "de-tonalised"  Brixton "Huggle" lovers)))))

((((*Anna Key* in case I've "upset" myself by this post))))

(((Talulah who deserves a MONSTER Huggle))))

((((*Anyone* who after reading this thread *stubs their toe getting out of the bath!!*)))

((((For any *water* found on Mars)))


((((For *Hatboy,* who I've just had lunch with. Come back and stop all this crap on the Brixton Forum)))


----------



## JWH (Apr 16, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> It is simply not on to attack [Anna Key]


S/he doesn't seem to be worried about it:



			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> This is a public bulletin board not a group encounter session in a psychiatric hospital.


----------



## Domski (Apr 16, 2004)

In the spirit of a non-psychiatric ward Brixton forum... Anna, stop being a c*nt


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> In the spirit of a non-psychiatric ward Brixton forum... Anna, stop being a c*nt


hatboy stopping posting is as disappointing as yr continuing to.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Apr 16, 2004)

Fuck huggles!   

Snuggles rock!!!!!!!

~*snuggles to evewybody*~

Or better than that - Fraggles Rock:








PLUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 42+23i on the Argand plane refers (but backwards)


----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)

God Bless America  _!_


----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)

God Bless George W. Bush. _!_


----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)

God Bless _Freedom_ and _Democracy_and the right to _Free Association_ !


----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)

God bless America.


----------



## LDR (Apr 17, 2004)

Hollis - What are you up to?   

This is very out of character.


----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## Hollis (Apr 17, 2004)




----------



## pooka (Apr 17, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka you old subversive you. You're forgetting, conveniently, post 602, which reads:
> 
> Why are you forgetting, conveniently, post 602? Not *more* misrepresentation, surely? Not after we've had *"huggles?"*
> 
> ...



Goodness Anna, first time in all my time here I've seen someone link the _same post of their own_, twice in the same posting! And I've just linked it twice again for you. So that's four times you've called me a liar or an incompetent - not bad goping eh?

I rather suspect were going to see more of at post 653 (ooops, there it goes again), like every time you want to shut me up. If so, can you quote me correctly please?

Not as you have:




			
				Anna Key
 said:
			
		

> Pooka at 612
> Quote:
> Anna: Glad to hear you've got round to reading the FAQ after all this time - you were remarkably well versed earlier in the thread (about the relationship between the FAQ and an editorial line) fo (sic) someone who hadn't



But:




			
				pooka said:
			
		

> Anna: Glad to hear you've got round to reading the FAQ after all this time - you were remarkably well versed earlier in the thread (about the relationship between the FAQ and an editorial line) for someone who hadn't



I know how much you abhor _misrepresentation_ Anna, so I'm sure you'll agree with me the importance of getting these things right. Not sure what that fo (sic)' business is about, perhaps you were huried? On balance, I'm sure you did your best to be accurate and fair.

Or, to avoid the profligate use of bandwidth with repeated links to the authority of _Post 653_, if you want to call me a liar, or incompetent or both - then just do so. And back it up with a few examples, ideally accurately quoted  

Looks like you had a 'good' lunch with hatboy:



			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> For Hatboy, who I've just had lunch with. Come back and stop all this crap on the Brixton Forum



Is that 'contravening the FAQ' crap (which any moderator can address) or deviating from the 'editorial line' crap. ((((((Anna)))))) - you're pining already


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 17, 2004)

Pooka: I'm more than happy for you to misrepresent me whenever you want. It's a free country and misrepresentation doesn't breach the FAQ. 

All I'll do is catch you, and expose you.

(((Pooka telling lies via misrepresentation - see 653 above )))


----------



## fanta (Apr 17, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka: I'm more than happy for you to misrepresent me whenever you want. It's a free country and misrepresentation doesn't breach the FAQ.
> 
> All I'll do is catch you, and expose you.
> 
> (((Pooka telling lies via misrepresentation - see 653 above )))



_I don’t mind, particularly, because it concerned a minor matter and think he probably just made a mistake._

Yeah riiight! Of course you don't mind!!

All this fussing and fighting just because some tender nerves were touched by all this talk of snooty cliques in the Brixton forum.

May I make so bold as to suggest certain posters get a life?


----------



## fanta (Apr 17, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka telling lies via misrepresentation...



What misrepresentation? 

Like trying to compare Brixton Prison to a death camp perhaps?

Is that the sort of lies though _misrepresentation_ you are talking about?


----------



## Janine (Apr 17, 2004)

So, 30 pages later, did this issue get resolved like?


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 17, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> _I don’t mind, particularly, because it concerned a minor matter and think he probably just made a mistake._
> 
> Yeah riiight! Of course you don't mind!!


Honest fanta - ((((Fanta)))) - I don't mind. If Pooka wants to misrepresent me that's his right. In fact I'll _defend_ his right to misrepresent.

But I'll also defend my right to expose him when he does it. Fair enough?



> get a life


It's a beautiful spring day. I've just eaten a huge, delicious breakfast with a loved one - we had pastourma and scambled eggs and lightly fried tomatoes and broad beans cooked with onions and dill - and may stroll down the Beehive shortly for fun and laughter and comradeship and Summer Lightning with old friends.

But I'll take your advice and get a life.

(((Fanta)))


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 17, 2004)

AK -- you sound like Charles Arrowby.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 17, 2004)

(((Intostella)))


----------



## pooka (Apr 17, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> Pooka: I'm more than happy for you to misrepresent me whenever you want. It's a free country and misrepresentation doesn't breach the FAQ.
> All I'll do is catch you, and expose you.
> 
> (((Pooka telling lies via misrepresentation - see 653 above )))



As I predicted, Post 653 becomes Anna Key's substitute for rational argument - offensive, inaccurate (you've still not corrected it Anna) and inflamatory.

Tell you what Anna, whenever I see you're about to loose an arguement _I'll_ quote Post 653 for you! But you'll forgive me if I point out your editing of my text while I'm at it.

Janine: Well, no the smilie is not what this thread is about at all. But it's removal is symptomatic of Anna's convenient failure to understand humour in posting, as a way of avoiding the argument. Odd, given that he's a bit of an expert in the field.




			
				Anna Key said:
			
		

> They hate being laughed at. But then all bullies do. Which is an excellent reason for laughing at them. They’d prefer to be beating you up behind the bike shed.



Mandatory genuflection to 653, wherein Anna Key wilfully to misquotes Pooka in order to call him a liar.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 17, 2004)

(((Pooka-in-a-hole *dig* *dig* *dig*)))


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 17, 2004)

((((((((Pooka))))))))


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> What misrepresentation?
> 
> Like trying to compare Brixton Prison to a death camp perhaps?
> 
> Is that the sort of lies though _misrepresentation_ you are talking about?



  Talk about "getting a life" .Youve got a good memory for posts-Id forgotten all about that one-Im to busy to remember everything on the boards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2004)

for those of us who are confused about who's in which group, could we have a quick summary? pooka, you seem to know who's who. could you oblige?

cheers in advance!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2004)

newbie said:
			
		

> D'you think?
> 
> As I've said before, I'd suggest it was more of a split on subcultural lines. I suspect my politics are closer to people in your group than to members of what you think is mine.  But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to agree with anybody about anything.
> 
> ...



   Ive admitted that I know the some of the posters offline.But Id like to point out thats after encountering them online first.Yes I do drink in the Albert,go to the Eds Offline club nights at the Ritzy-their is nothing to stop you going to them.It would be interesting to meet you.The G4 dont bite  

   Its Pooka who put the lists of two Groups up-not me-after me asking him.I never claimed you were in any group.

   I didnt think your politics were that different.From your posts I think you are roughly the same generation as me.Did you see that "Grumpy Old Men" on the BBC2 this week  

  Subcultures-I gone into that in detail on another thread.I dont agree with your view of subcultures.


----------



## fanta (Apr 18, 2004)

Gramsci said:
			
		

> Talk about "getting a life" .Youve got a good memory for posts-Id forgotten all about that one-Im to busy to remember everything on the boards.



Past posts that were conspicuous for their blatant dishonesty and which then prove to be amusing examples of hypocrisy are very easy to remember.

But yes you're right - I probably do need to get out more! 

In fact fuck it, I'm off to the pub right now!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> I have made an assertion about two disparate views that have held sway on this Forum for the past year and the consequent dynamic that has ensued. My evidence? The following threads:
> 
> However, some specifics:
> 
> ...



   Hi Pickman welcome to Brixton "Editorial Group"


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> _Those of the 'editorial line' view have felt justified in using personal attacks, ganging-up tag team tactics and even the moderator editing peoples posts, to protect the 'line'_
> 
> Who has been defending feedom of speech. For myself I find lang rabbie, newbie, domski and occasionally fanta's posts deserve credit in this respect. And of course, I try to make my own small contribution.



  For your info Pickman the "defenders of freedom of speech"


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2004)

Pickman as a new member of the "editorial group" Intostella will give you instruction in "online wrestling"   and Anna in "hypocritical" posting   

  I want to know why Mr BC is not a part of the "Editorial group" as hes tried so hard  .


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Well, Anna has made that claim repeatedly on this very thread, Gramsci has praised his posts doing so, Intostella has leapt to his defence, with Jezza and Pickman's in attendance. hatboy has reported that " he tried to frighten off idiots" - so yes, I'd say "one group of people posting in this forum" is a reasonable description.


i'm pleased to find myself in such good company! but i didn't think i'd been following any line but my own. 


> _Who has been defending feedom of speech. For myself I find lang rabbie, newbie, domski and occasionally fanta's posts deserve credit in this respect. And of course, I try to make my own small contribution._


domski's an arse! he couldn't defend a wicket with a big bat let alone free speech! might as well have webel warrior to defend free speech. is that tiramasu or tarannau or whatnot in yr cosy cabal? i expect he'd fit right in with his bizarre way of basely judging people. fanta's a tad erratic and i wouldn't want his reactionary rhetoric anywhere near anything i wanted to remain unassailable. and lang rabbie...!  why don't you have pk on yr little tag-team! be a better choice.



> _Yes, I believe there have been two distinct schools of thought in respect whether or not the contents of posts should be in some way constrained, above and beyond the FAQ. I think Anna et al believed there was an 'editorial line' to be maintained, I think hatboy also thought that - and sometimes they agreed what that line should be!_


 i feel people who have views which run contrary to the ethos of the boards should recognise themselves that this is not their natural environment and withdraw gracefully. often people who hold views contrary to the only editorial line on u75 i know of - that of editor, as laid down in the faq - find themselves banned, and rightly so, usually being slightly to the right of genghis khan or candidates for a stay at hackney hospital. i know each individual moderator has a different style: but moderators have some sort of masonic board where they discuss their business in private. if people have problems with moderation here (ie in the brixton forum) i feel that they should have attempted to resolve it amicably, in private, with the responsible moderator and not by a full frontal pre-judged assault - it shows a lack of courtesy and a lack of, for want of a better word, decorum. and where have i said i was against freedom of speech, btw? all i'd like to see is some posters, most notably that arch timewater domski (but also tiramawotsit), learn something about conflict resolution: and for other posters, for example you, pooka, to realise that if there is a cabal of people who dislike the rather pitiful people you believe to be a decent crew, and that cabal now chat to each other and see themselves in opposition to you and yr unfortunate (and, imo, ill-chosen) mates, then that grouping has been created by the onslaught of a more sinister "lodge" of people with a macabre agenda. i don't believe that there were two separate groups of people before this thread started. there were a disparate number of people who, imo in isolation or in loose contact with each other, held similar views and there was a conspiratorial group who decided they'd like to see the back of a moderator. if there wasn't a conspiracy beforehand, then people who wanted to see the departure of hatboy fell together most fortuitously. those opposed to that came together without a plan or some sort of prior contingency procedure. it's you and yr (sadly grubby) mates who have demeaned this forum and weakened the position of all the mods.



> _For my part, I don't want to engage with a forum with such a line. As long as people adher to the FAQ they can say what they want and expect to argue their corner, perhaps to be outnumbered, but not to be insulted, harrassed or harangued if they are in a minority._


happy thoughts! but too little, too late.


----------



## pooka (Apr 18, 2004)

pooka Post 191 said:
			
		

> There may not be a clique on Brixton forum, but there is a smug, self-assembling tag-team who clearly feel that not only are they the keepers of the true spirit of real-world Brixton but also that they are the arbiters of what world-view is acceptable on this forum. Their aim, as ever, is to constrain real debate to an ideological mutual-grooming fest.






			
				Anna Key Post397 said:
			
		

> Therefore, to develop and maintain a desired editorial line certain posters are encouraged, others discouraged.






			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i feel people who have views which run contrary to the ethos of the boards should recognise themselves that this is not their natural environment and withdraw gracefully.



You make my case - thanks.

<potentially provocative comment about tag teams removed>

Pickman's. Thanks for your extended contribution to this thread - the odd para break would be helpful   

I entirely disagree with your analysis. There's been two schools of thought going back way before this thread - they differ in attitudes to change in Brixton. Read the threads I cited before. What's newly revealed by this thread is this notion of an 'editorial line', an orthodoxy, a 'natural environment' and that unacceptable posters should 'withdraw' or be 'discouraged'. The language alone gives one the creeps - the behaviour it's underpinnned has done lots to damage this forum.

I don't buy the stuff about a conspiracy to oust hatboy, for whom I've a lot of time on here and in the real world. He started this thread with "I'm thinking of going" and some people with whom he'd had a ding dong lately said "OK, go then", and not many people at that. You don't need much of a conspiracy to explain that. Added to which one of the critical voices was another administrator and only one of the people you listed argued for him to go   



			
				Pickman's Model said:
			
		

> that cabal now chat to each other and see themselves in opposition to you and yr unfortunate (and, imo, ill-chosen) mates


Hadn't realised it had got that bad   





			
				Pickman's Model said:
			
		

> domski's an arse! .......... it's you and yr (sadly grubby) mates ............. .........all i'd like to see is some posters, most notably that _arch timewater domski _ (but also _tiramawotsit_), *learn something about conflict resolution *


Priceless  





			
				Pickman's Model said:
			
		

> and lang rabbie...!  why don't you have pk on yr little tag-team! be a better choice.



Erm, I think if you see lang rabbie and pk as being inter-changeable, then we're reading very different boards!


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 18, 2004)

Pickman's Model said:
			
		

> and lang rabbie...!



I've no objection to being described as "a defender of freedom of speech".

While this little domestic spat has being going on in Urban 75, one of the ways I've been spending my time was seeing off a BNP troll in "another place"  .   

When I revealed that I had debated in person (many years ago) with Gerry Gable of Searchlight Magazine  against the "No platform for fascists" agenda, but I still thought that the whinging BNP troll's arguments were crap, and I would be happy to refute everything he posted, there was a certain "collapse of stout party", and we've heard nothing more since in that forum.

Edited to add (in case anyone gives a ****): drafted before pooka's most recent post - I had read pickman's post as distinguishing me from the axis described in pooka's earlier post quoted by pickman.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 18, 2004)

Don't critisise Pickmans posting style Pooka. 

His posts are of superior quality. He has been told at several Urban meet up's.


----------



## Loki (Apr 18, 2004)

This thread _really_ should be retired.  It's getting a bit embarrasing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2004)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> Don't critisise Pickmans posting style Pooka.
> 
> His posts are of superior quality. He has been told at several Urban meet up's.


nice to see you've been paying attention.


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 18, 2004)

Will you be using that brilliant posting style to explain why you contradicted yourself above as pointed out by Pooka?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2004)

which contradiction d'you mean?


----------



## Mr Retro (Apr 18, 2004)

This contradiction:



> domski's an arse! .......... it's you and yr (sadly grubby) mates ............. .........all i'd like to see is some posters, most notably that arch timewater domski (but also tiramawotsit), learn something about conflict resolution


----------



## Loki (Apr 18, 2004)

I wish some of you could step outside of this and see how petty you're being now.  Christ!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2004)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> This contradiction:


 please explain it.


----------



## Loki (Apr 18, 2004)

Trishia is casting for her "Get a Life or Lose your Wife" show.  Thought I might ask here.


----------



## Hollis (Apr 19, 2004)

Edited quickly... for my own sake..


----------



## TeeJay (Apr 19, 2004)

LatinSuperFly?

Unzips files.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 20, 2004)

Once and for all I wanted to go. I've explained why, including boredom.


----------



## fanta (Apr 20, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> ...fanta's a tad erratic...



That isn't how you spell erotic!

But thank you anyway...


----------



## Domski (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm probably more pleased at being called an arse by Pickman's than he was when someone told him his posts were of 'superior' quality...  

His idea that people should gracefully leave the boards if they're not in tune with the majority view is fucking hilarious. That's some good conflict resolution right there


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

*NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!*

[DOOR BURSTS OPEN AND IN RUSH CARDINALS POOKA, RABBIE AND NEWBIE

Cardinal Pooka: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief Editorial Group member is….
Anna Key...Anna Key and IntoStella...IntoStella  and Anna Key....  
Our Two Editorial Group members are IntoStella  and Anna Key...and Gramsci....  
Our *three* Editorial Group members are….Anna Key, IntoStella, Gramsci ...and Red Jezza....  
No… hang on... Our *four* editorial group members are.... Anna Key and IntoStella... and Gramsci, Red Jezza... and... and Hatboy.
Wait, no.... our *five*.... our *five* Gang of Four Editorial Group members are Anna Key and IntoStella... and Gramsci, Red Jezza... and... and Hatboy... and Pickman's Model! No, that's wrong! He's just an accessory...

CARDINALS RABBIE AND NEWBIE: A HANDBAG?

CARDINAL POOKA: No wait... Our *six*... Our six Editorial Group members are Anna Key, IntoStella and Gramsci... and Red Jezza... and Hatboy and Pickman's Model... and Mr BC! No! That can't POSSIBLY be right! 
Our *six*...no... *Amongst* our Editorial Group members....  Amongst our Editorial Group members...are such elements as…. Anna Key, IntoStella....  I'll come in again.  (Exit and exeunt)

Hatboy: I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 20, 2004)

LOL!

[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]

Pooka: Fear, surprise, and a most ruthless-- [controls himself with a supreme effort] Ooooh! Now, Fanta-- the rack!

Fanta produces a plastic-coated dish-drying rack. Pooka looks at  it and clenches his teeth in an effort not to lose control. He hums  heavily to cover his anger (but is careful not to misrepresent Fanta)]

Pooka: You....Right! Tie her down.

[Fanta and lang rabbie make a pathetic attempt to tie Intostella on  to the drying rack]

Pooka: Right! How do you plead?
Intostella: Innocent!
Pooka: Ha! Right! Fanta, give the rack [oh dear] give the rack a turn.

[Fanta stands there awkwardly and shrugs his shoulders]

Fanta: I....
Pooka: [gritting his teeth] I *know*, I know you can't. I didn't 
want to say anything. I just wanted to try and ignore your crass mistake. And stop being so belligerent!
Fanta: I...
Pooka: It makes it all seem so stupid.
Fanta: Shall I...?
Pooka: No, just pretend for God's sake. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Taranau: But don't you think you're setting the wrong "tone?"  Aren't you "putting people off?"
Pooka: Shut it! Or I'll have you muzzled like Miss FX!! And stop being so belligerent!!

[Taranau slinks off muttering about "tonalities." Lang rabbie and 
Bob swap political tracts.]

Hatboy: I'm not here.

[DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER]


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 20, 2004)

[Cut to them torturing Gramsci]

Pooka: Now, Gramsci-- you are accused of heresy on three counts -- 
heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by "tone"-- *four* counts. Do you confess?
Gramsci: I don't understand what I'm accused of.
Pooka: Ha! Then we'll make you understand! Fanta! Fetch...THE CUSHIONS!

[JARRING CHORD]

[Fanta holds out two ordinary modern household cushions]

Fanta: Here they are, lord.
Pooka: Now, Gramsci-- you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of "tonality," reject the works of trendy French philosophers-- *two* last chances. And you shall be free -- *three* last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
Gramsci: I don't know what you're talking about.
Pooka: Right! If that's the way you want it – Fanta! Poke him 
with the soft cushions!

[Fanta carries out this rather pathetic torture]

Pooka: Confess! Confess! Confess!
Fanta: It doesn't seem to be hurting him, lord.
Pooka: Have you got all the stuffing up one end?
Fanta: Yes, lord.
Pooka [angrily hurling away the cushions]: Hm! He's is made of harder 
stuff! Cardinal Rabbie! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR

Taranau: Wrong tone! Wrong TONE!
Hatboy: I'm not here.


----------



## LDR (Apr 20, 2004)

hatboy said:
			
		

> Once and for all I wanted to go. I've explained why, including boredom.



I'm bored of this forum too now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> That isn't how you spell erotic!
> 
> But thank you anyway...


it's not how you spell 'fuckwit' either: i felt, though, erratic was the kindest word i'd use.


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

Domski said:
			
		

> I'm probably more pleased at being called an arse by Pickman's than he was when someone told him his posts were of 'superior' quality...
> 
> His idea that people should gracefully leave the boards if they're not in tune with the majority view is fucking hilarious. That's some good conflict resolution right there


i said that if people's views didn't fit in with the ethos here they should leave: or would you have bnpers as honoured urbanites?

if you'd had any idea of how to resolve personal issues with people we wouldn't have been treated to yr fuckwitted thread which preceded this one. i know a bit about conflict resolution: if i choose to disregard it, it's because i have no desire to make up with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

>


that's tony benn - president of the stwc - in a cardinal's get-up!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> I'm bored of this forum too now.


 I know what you mean. It has become so anodyne.

So utterly devoid of humour.

So soul-destroyingly *bland*.






Huggles and tapioca all round.

Eat up now -- but don't forget to blow on it in case it's too hot. We don't want to upset the tonality.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 20, 2004)

On my last posts on this mammoth thread, some days ago, I'll wholly admit to reaching the end of my tether and perhaps stirring things up

The reason? Despite the thread seeming to settle down, a regularly self-assembling group of posters seemed to resist any form of criticism. In fact they seemed to positively ignore and criticism and crow triumphantly how their way was right after all. Those with genuine concerns were ridiculed, dropped out bored or simply stopped posting. Nothing really changed - the whole back-slapping notions of superiority continued unabated

And here we go again. A variety of folks have genuinely come up with their concerns, said their piece and tried to move forward as best as they can. And the same prolific posters are here again, once again essentially taking the piss and ridiculing their concerns of others again. Are the opinions of those folks confessing boredom, frustration ... or simply not visiting the forum anymore -  less valid or something?

I don't care how many points you're trying to score off me, but I'd definitely prefer it if things actually moved on a little...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)




----------



## Anna Key (Apr 20, 2004)

tarannau said:
			
		

> On my last posts on this mammoth thread, some days ago, I'll wholly admit to reaching the end of my tether and perhaps stirring things up
> 
> The reason? Despite the thread seeming to settle down, a regularly self-assembling group of posters seemed to resist any form of criticism. In fact they seemed to positively ignore and criticism and crow triumphantly how their way was right after all. Those with genuine concerns were ridiculed, dropped out bored or simply stopped posting. Nothing really changed - the whole back-slapping notions of superiority continued unabated
> 
> ...


But I disagree with, or fail to understand, your arguments.

Unless I've got you wrong you're complaining about the "tone" of some posts which is "putting people off."

Sometimes I read your posts and like them. Sometimes I read them and don't like them. In the latter case the "tone"  of your post is "wrong" (for me) and it has "put me off."

But what's wrong with 

(a) you posting whatever you want within the FAQ and

(b) me sometimes being "put off" by the "tone" of what you post?


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm afraid that this has become one of those threads that makes me question why I bother putting in all the effort to keep urban75 alive...


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

*Sacrificial crops*

You could look upon it as what ecologically-minded horticulturists call a sacrificial crop. You plant a crop, ie maize, and nearby you plant something that pests, such as greenfly or blackfly, find even more irresistable yummy than your crop. So they eat the sacrificial crop instead. It works, amazingly and means you don't have to use harmful insecticides.    

I see no harm in it. No new poster is going to trawl doggedly through it and it's only one thread out of a great many interesting (and perfectly welcoming) ones that are currently going on. 

If someone is a new poster on a board, is it reasonable or practicable  for them to expect _every single thread that is already there _to be instantly understandable, familiar, accessible and welcoming? If so, many of the threads on football, politics, drugs, philosophy and science should be axed, for a start. 

If people are so bored with the argument, why do they keep on and on coming back for another crack?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 20, 2004)

A quick dumping of the threaded mode view into Excel gives the following crude league table of posts to date:

Anna Key...........84 
Athos................12 
aurora green........1 
Baub...................2 
Belushi...............22 
Bob....................3 
Bond...................1 
Brixton Hatter.......1  
Buzz SW9............6
chegrimandi.........2
davey.................1
detective-boy......2
Domski...............12
Dubversion...........1
editor................16
ernestolynch........2
fanta..................8
fat hamster.........1
flimsier................2
Fuzzy.................2
GarfieldLeChat......7
Gramsci.............22
han....................1
hatboy...............9
hendo.................1
Hollis.................11
IntoStella...........93
isvicthere?...........3
Janine.................1
Johnny Canuck.....4
JWH...................3
lang rabbie.........20
LD Rudeboy........15
Loki....................4
loud....................1
miss minnie..........3
Mr BC................20
Mr Retro..............7
MsT....................1
MysteryGuest.......1
nanoespresso.......1
newbie..............26
NVP....................1
Ol Nick................3
Orang Utan..........2
Pickman's model..20
pk......................6
pooka................66
Pot-Bellied Pig......1
Red Jezza...........18
Rollem................2
silentNate...........1
Snorkelboy..........5
splatto...............1
Stobart Spotter...2
sufilala...............2
suzee blue cheese.1
tarannau............13
TeeJay..............9
TopCat..............1
William of Walworth.2
wiskey...............1
zubaier..............3


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)




----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> A quick dumping of the threaded mode view into Excel gives the following crude league table of posts to date:


Quick! Cardinal Pooka! THE CUSHIONS!!!


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)

IntoStella……….93
Anna Key……….84
pooka……….66
newbie……….26
Belushi……….22
Gramsci……….22
lang rabbie……….20
Mr BC……….20
Pickman's model……….20
Red Jezza……….18
editor……….16
LD Rudeboy……….15
tarannau……….13
Athos……….12
Domski……….12
Hollis……….11
hatboy……….9
TeeJay……….9
fanta……….8
GarfieldLeChat……….7
Mr Retro……….7
Buzz SW9……….6
pk……….6
Snorkelboy……….5
Johnny Canuck……….4
Loki……….4
Bob……….3
isvicthere?……….3
JWH……….3
miss minnie……….3
Ol Nick……….3
zubaier……….3
Baub……….2
chegrimandi……….2
detective-boy……….2
ernestolynch……….2
flimsier……….2
Fuzzy……….2
Orang Utan……….2
Rollem……….2
Stobart Spotter……….2
sufilala……….2
William of Walworth……….2
aurora green……….1
Bond……….1
Brixton Hatter……….1
davey……….1
Dubversion……….1
fat hamster……….1
han……….1
hendo……….1
Janine……….1
loud……….1
MsT……….1
MysteryGuest……….1
nanoespresso……….1
NVP……….1
Pot-Bellied Pig……….1
silentNate……….1
splatto……….1
suzee blue cheese……….1
TopCat……….1
wiskey……….1


No mistaking the "pests, such as greenfly or blackfly" then - how embarrassing   

bzzzzzzzz

(H.E. pooka)


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

My dear Cardinal! You truly can number fanatical devotion to the Tone among your weaponry. 

That must have taken you ages! 

Now who was it said something earlier about _getting a life_?  

Our office fridge is currently full of nematodes. I'm in big trouble if they escape.


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> My dear Cardinal! You truly can number fanatical devotion to the Tone among your weaponry.
> 
> That must have taken you ages!
> 
> Now who was it said something earlier about _getting a life_?



=LEFT(b1,2)
=FIND(".",c2)
=value(if(iserror(d1),c1,left(d,1))

Data Sort A1...E_n_   &tc.

Keep up, i2s - stop nodding off at the back there!


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> =LEFT(b1,2)
> =FIND(".",c2)
> =value(if(iserror(d1),c1,left(d,1))
> 
> ...


 Nerd.


----------



## fanta (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> IntoStella……….93
> Anna Key……….84
> pooka……….66
> newbie……….26
> ...



LOL

Ouch ouch ouch!

One hundred and seventy seven times more painfully embarrassing than _any_ rack could be!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> how embarrassing


are you sure yr figures are right, cos they don't seem to agree with what happens if you look to see who's posted on the thread.


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> are you sure yr figures are right, cos they don't seem to agree with what happens if you look to see who's posted on the thread.



Dunno - just used the ones rabbie posted.




			
				Intostella said:
			
		

> My dear Cardinal!



That's 'Your Eminence' to you, but I don't go in for that kissing rings malarky.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> are you sure yr figures are right, cos they don't seem to agree with what happens if you look to see who's posted on the thread.


<Hussssshhhh, Picky, the truth is EVEN WORSE!!   >


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

IntoStella 	115
Anna Key 	88
pooka 	68
Pickman's model 	45
Athos 	30
Gramsci 	28
newbie 	27
TeeJay 	23
lang rabbie 	23
Belushi 	22
Mr BC 	22
Red Jezza 	22
pk 	20
editor 	19
LD Rudeboy 	17
Domski 	16
hatboy 	14
tarannau 	14
fanta 	13
Hollis 	11
GarfieldLeChat 	10
Snorkelboy 	9
rascal 	7
Mr Retro 	7
zubaier 	7
Stobart Spotter 	6
Orang Utan 	5
Fuzzy 	5
Loki 	5
Buzz sw9 	5
davey 	4
Dubversion 	4
miss minnie 	4
flimsier 	4
Johnny Canuck2 	4
aurora green 	4
detective-boy 	4
JWH 	3
Bob 	3
isvicthere? 	3
Baub 	3
Ol Nick 	3
johnny v 	3
sufilala 	2
Rollem 	2
William of Walworth 	2
chegrimandi 	2
Brixton Hatter 	2
Bond 	2
nos 	2
ernestolynch 	2
Ms T 	2
nanoespresso 	1
suzee blue cheese 	1
Fidel 	1
FreddyB 	1
Relahni 	1
white rabbit 	1
TopCat 	1
reubeness 	1
reNnIe 	1
wiskey 	1
fat hamster 	1
loud 1 	1
silentNate 	1
maldwyn 	1
MysteryGuest 	1
kea 	1
Pot-Bellied Pig 	1
hendo 	1
splatto 	1
han 	1
Janine 	1
NVP 	1
behemoth 	1
Roadkill 	1
Dr. Christmas 	1
brixtonvilla 1


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 20, 2004)

And there was I adding in all those dots to try and stymie the production of a multivariate "value-added" league table - combining number of posts, number of expletives and the independently peer reviewed ratings of the Googled links quoted by the posters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Dunno - just used the ones rabbie posted.


  it _always_ takes a historian to check other people's sources...


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Dunno - just used the ones rabbie posted.


Makes a change.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> And there was I adding in all those dots to try and stymie the production of a multivariate "value-added" league table - combining number of posts, number of expletives and the independently peer reviewed ratings of the Googled links quoted by the posters.


 You see, this is EXACTLY what happens if you don't tell your comrades, like Pooka, what to think. 

They go off-message and have to be_ re-educated. _

First person to write a routine to arrange posters in order of number and naughtiness of expletives gets a Mars bar.


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 20, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> First person to write a routine to arrange posters in order of number and naughtiness of expletives gets a Mars bar.


"Tone" should be included. And whether some buffoon gets "bored." Or a shrinking violet is "put off" or "upset" or feels "unwelcome."

I stick by my earlier suggestion of a Tonalities Committee chaired by Pooka. Taranau can be Secretary, Fanta Chief Whip and Lang Rabbie occupy the joint role of Political Commissar and Chief Statistician.


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> "Tone" should be included. And whether some buffoon gets "bored." Or a shrinking violet is "put off" or "upset" or feels "unwelcome."
> 
> I stick by my earlier suggestion of a Tonalities Committee chaired by Pooka. Taranau can be Secretary, Fanta Chief Whip and Lang Rabbie occupy the joint role of Political Commissar and Chief Statistician.



Oh dear, there was a brief moment there when this turgid thread could have ended on a note of good grace   It was too much to hope for, I guess.  

.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

It depends entirely upon whose foot the boot is on, does it not, your Emission, sorry, Eminem, I mean Prominence, dammit, your _Eminence. _Mince. nence. Sir.


----------



## fanta (Apr 20, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Oh dear, there was a brief moment there when this turgid thread could have ended on a note of good grace   It was too much to hope for, I guess.
> 
> .



Hmmm. Likewise. I suspect that your earlier post was maybe just a tad too funny.


----------



## Fuzzy (Apr 20, 2004)

fanta said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Ouch ouch ouch!
> 
> One hundred and seventy seven times more painfully embarrassing than _any_ rack could be!



 heheheh


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 20, 2004)

*Kill the thread - now!!!*

It is clear that this thread is no mere sacrificial crop, but actually a rapidly evolving and infectious parasitic form of life.   

Are those really just nematodes in IS's fridge.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

Never mind, fanta. I wouldn't ever expect you to understand the nuances of self-deprecating humour. Or to grasp  the concept of good grace, for that matter.


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2004)

Perhaps this thread should be sent off to a virtual museum or something and saved as an example of how people pointlessly bickered, nit-picked and argued away the hours in the early 21st Century?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

lang rabbie said:
			
		

> It is clear that this thread is no mere sacrificial crop, but actually a rapidly evolving and infectious parasitic form of life.


 That's odd. A short while ago you spent absolutely ages placing  lots of little dots in an (entirely erroneous, it turned out) league table of posters. You're rather erratic today. I suggest you report to the Tonalities Committee for recalibration.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

I have just realised that since I last backed this up, it has grown by 18 pages.


----------



## pooka (Apr 20, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps this thread should be sent off to a virtual museum or something and saved as an example of how people pointlessly bickered, nit-picked and argued away the hours in the early 21st Century?



I don't think its been entirely pointless - I've found the central tenet (the 'editorial line') a revelation. But I shan't post on it again - it needs to be let die before it festers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps this thread should be sent off to a virtual museum or something and saved as an example of how people pointlessly bickered, nit-picked and argued away the hours in the early 21st Century?


why don't you bin it and reduce everyone's postcounts accordingly, as a little slap on the wrist for dragging it out?


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why don't you bin it and reduce everyone's postcounts accordingly, as a little slap on the wrist for dragging it out?


OI!!!!    

I am clearly failing in my duties as Chief Whip. 

<Swish! Ker-thwack! > 

I don't care about my post count.  Chop away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

i see a little cull as an opportunity, a challenge if you will.


----------



## han (Apr 20, 2004)

editor said:
			
		

> Perhaps this thread should be sent off to a virtual museum or something and saved as an example of how people pointlessly bickered, nit-picked and argued away the hours in the early 21st Century?



lol!

You have to laugh, really. It's so ridiculous it's funny! IntoStella and Pooka - you're hilarious.

But it IS a bit sad too


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 20, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i see a little cull as an opportunity, a challenge if you will.


 Oh noooooo! Not more post count wars!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2004)

look upon my postcount, ye mighty, and despair!


----------



## Anna Key (Apr 21, 2004)

pooka said:
			
		

> Oh dear, there was a brief moment there when this turgid thread could have ended on a note of good grace   It was too much to hope for, I guess.
> 
> .


Calm down dear. It's only a bulletin board.


----------



## Loki (Apr 21, 2004)

Christ, I really thought I'd managed to kill this thread with my "Get a Life or Lose your Wife" post.

But no


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 21, 2004)

So you bumped it again!      

You just can't let it go, can ya?!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2004)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> So you bumped it again!
> 
> You just can't let it go, can ya?!


stop worrying the thread! it'll be dead soon enough and you'll be able to play with it to yr heart's content. till the rotting limbs come off, anyway.


----------



## IntoStella (Apr 21, 2004)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> stop worrying the thread! it'll be dead soon enough and you'll be able to play with it to yr heart's content. till the rotting limbs come off, anyway.


 That's when the fun_ starts_.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2004)

Anna Key said:
			
		

> [Cut to them torturing Gramsci]
> 
> Pooka: Now, Gramsci-- you are accused of heresy on three counts --
> heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by "tone"-- *four* counts. Do you confess?
> ...




  

http://www.borinvanloon.co.uk/pagemill_images/derridaalthusser.gif


----------

