RYA - Marks out of 10?

[kimhollamby]

Ummm, yes I might choose to publish them in advance next time. The repetition factor wasn't obvious at first glance as they arrived but as they started to be answered on the day it became clear that there was overlap and I wound up making some snap judgements on whether issues were faced off or not.

The reason I didn't publish in advance this time around was because I didn't want to make it look to the less forum savvy browser (or indeed to the regular user who didn't realise it was a moderated session) that the RYA was being asked a lot of questions it wasn't answering. Having spent a couple of years of my life looking at web browsing habits I believe there would have been a danger of that.

I could also set up a pre-meeting forum accessible only to people that had asked questions, which is another approach, but the danger there is it starts to look cliquey if not understood.

Excuse the ramble but thinking as posting...always a bad move!

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[FlyingSpud]

Don’t like the idea of a ‘sealed forum’, as you say cuts people out.

Maybe you could start the ball rolling with a series of proposed questions that you think reflect views on the forum and then we could tell you why you are wrong and we could hammer out amendments.

I dunno though, like you, I’m rambling

As a matter of interest, did Fergie post a question? He was the most vitriolic about the RYA but didn’t appear on the board.

 

[rhinorhino]

Fergie was on a ban wasn't he?

 

[Observer]

This is why...

I think you could re-read your posts on this and understand why they smacked of arrogance.

Your first post appears to be no more than a statement of your pre-judged view of the RYA rather than a conclusion based on the evidence of the questions and responses submitted on the forum, which is what it purported to be. You would not wish trial jurors to be similarly prejudiced.

In the context of the post to which your were responding, your comment "So you would rule out reasoned debate leading to a change of mind then?" seemed to me to imply exactly what I said.

I don't think I presumed anything. I expressed a view based on the evidence of your postings. Fair comment.

If I read you wrongly, I am happy to be corrected. Given your profession, I trust you are equally happy to be made aware of the unintended impression that your communication actually conveyed.

I think I'm right on this.

 

[rhinorhino]

Re: This is why...

Thanks for that, I sorry if I appeared arrogant to you.
Once again my comment " I am right about this ..." demonstrated the dangers of humour (or attempts thereat) on the forum.
This forum is at it's worst when we move from discussing the question to discussing each other.
I have reviewed your list of postings and I have read and inwardly digested your post and that is all I am going to say.

 

[kimhollamby]

We reinstated him just around the start of the session - should have been a bit earlier but we were slow with the reactivation, for which apologies. He didn't post.

kim_hollamby@ipcmedia.com

 

[NigeCh]

Re: MCofS????

Mountaineering Council of Scotland