Vera Lynn

[lostandfound]

You did not answer the question, and it is you who has stirred things up.

Threads would not get derailed if people like you could argue and debate cogently and coherently, stick to the point, and not make everything personal.

So, is there any point in me asking if you have a point to make that is relevant and isn't some sort of snide attack on me?

Ah - so now you wheel out your other favourite diversionary tactic. Poor KN getting picked on with a personal attack, in the same moment in which you make a personal attack on me! Classic! 

I recall you complaining I was patronising you, and then you telling Beamer he was a "performing seal". I expect you can't remember that though. 

You delight in running down other posters. Somewhat hypocritical to complain it is being done to you! 

[Beamer]

Of course it is relevant to this thread. Not my fault that you have a poor memory. It is of course convenient that you claim not to be able your past illogical posts, even though people remind you of them!

And it is typical of your mischief making to have politicised this thread. Your motive in referencing the Guardian opinion piece was clearly to turn a thread bemoaning the demise of a beloved singer into yet another political argument of the kind you love to stir up.

Historically, most contributors posted reviews in addition to commenting on Off-Topic threads.  With a few obvious exceptions who's intentions were always to dominate threads with their minority and extremist views.
Perhaps the owner's could reconsider that entry to Off-Topic threads should be dependent on contributing reviews.  This, afterall is the main section of UKP.....and clear market leader.

[David1970]

Historically, most contributors posted reviews in addition to commenting on Off-Topic threads.  With a few obvious exceptions who's intentions were always to dominate threads with their minority and extremist views.
Perhaps the owner's could reconsider that entry to Off-Topic threads should be dependent on contributing reviews.  This, afterall is the main section of UKP.....and clear market leader.

Do you mean either the must have done X number of reviews over the time they have been members or do X number of reviews in the last 12 months before they can go on Off-Topic?

[King Nuts]

Historically, most contributors posted reviews in addition to commenting on Off-Topic threads.  With a few obvious exceptions who's intentions were always to dominate threads with their minority and extremist views.
Perhaps the owner's could reconsider that entry to Off-Topic threads should be dependent on contributing reviews.  This, afterall is the main section of UKP.....and clear market leader.

It's a drum you keep banging, while at the same time, derailing threads that you accuse others of derailing.

[King Nuts]

Ah - so now you wheel out your other favourite diversionary tactic. Poor KN getting picked on with a personal attack, in the same moment in which you make a personal attack on me! Classic! 

I recall you complaining I was patronising you, and then you telling Beamer he was a "performing seal". I expect you can't remember that though. 

You delight in running down other posters. Somewhat hypocritical to complain it is being done to you! 

Yet again, you refuse to debate the point of this thread, and just come up with more petty and irrelevant comments.

[King Nuts]

Ah - so now you wheel out your other favourite diversionary tactic.

Wanting to engage in a debate about this thread's subject matter is hardly a 'diversionary tactic'.

[lostandfound]

Wanting to engage in a debate about this thread's subject matter is hardly a 'diversionary tactic'.

Yes - let's talk about what a great singer and all around good egg Vera Lynn was.

What a phenomenon "We'll meet again" is. A Jazz tune remaining popular even though popular music has long been dominated by simpler three chord ditties. Sounds quite a challenging song to sing as well. That rising chromatic scale at the beginning followed by a minor sixth interval. I bet many singers would struggle with that. A shame more popular tunes don't have such a novel construction IMO.

[Beamer]

Do you mean either the must have done X number of reviews over the time they have been members or do X number of reviews in the last 12 months before they can go on Off-Topic?

This is as an example, the detail needs further investigation.
An option....
To view Off-Topic threads a punter must have posted "x" reviews in the previous "x" months.

To post on Off-Topic threads the punter should have posted "y" reviews in the previous "y" months.

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

All sounds ott but I assume that a simple change to the programme is possible to accommodate. 

[David1970]

This is as an example, the detail needs further investigation.
An option....
To view Off-Topic threads a punter must have posted "x" reviews in the previous "x" months.

To post on Off-Topic threads the punter should have posted "y" reviews in the previous "y" months.

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

All sounds ott but I assume that a simple change to the programme is possible to accommodate.

Seems a good idea since this is a punting site.

[lostandfound]

Yet again, you refuse to debate the point of this thread, and just come up with more petty and irrelevant comments.

It was you who hijacked this thread, and as with many other threads, tried to turn it toward your personal political agenda.

[King Nuts]

This is as an example, the detail needs further investigation.
An option....
To view Off-Topic threads a punter must have posted "x" reviews in the previous "x" months.

To post on Off-Topic threads the punter should have posted "y" reviews in the previous "y" months.

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

All sounds ott but I assume that a simple change to the programme is possible to accommodate.

You are the first to complain when threads meander and divert away from the original subject matter and get bogged down in irrelevancy and personal oneupmanship and so on.

Meanwhile, you have introduced this notion of either banning or restricting access to Off Topic in multiple threads, which has that same effect.

Why not start your own thread on the subject, or join the existing one at the top of the page?

[King Nuts]

It was you who hijacked this thread, and as with many other threads, tried to turn it toward your personal political agenda.

You make me sound like Dave Spart or Wolfie. Have I gone into a coma and woken up in the middle of some 1970s Polytechnic debating society meeting?

I thought we were just a bunch of old misfits shooting the breeze.

[lostandfound]

You make me sound like Dave Spart or Wolfie. Have I gone into a coma and woken up in the middle of some 1970s Polytechnic debating society meeting?

I thought we were just a bunch of old misfits shooting the breeze.

It boring and tiresome trying to hijack almost every thread around to your politics.

[Beamer]

It was youKing Nuts who hijacked this thread, and as with many other threads, tried to turn it toward your personal political agenda.

An interesting message to send to the Owner's just before a decision will be made as to what the content of Off-Topic will be.

[King Nuts]

It boring and tiresome trying to hijack almost every thread around to your politics.

Then put me on 'ignore'. I contribute to very few threads here. 90 per cent of them I have no interest in, like stuff about football, farting, and porno etc. So I don't join in. I don't post saying things like 'this is crap'. I just stay away.

I am not 'hijacking' anything. If you think I am wrong about something, then either ignore me or tell me why you disagree with something I have said.

[Beamer]

Then put me on 'ignore'. I contribute to very few threads here. 90 per cent of them I have no interest in, like stuff about football, farting, and porno etc. So I don't join in. I don't post saying things like 'this is crap'. I just stay away.

I am not 'hijacking' anything. If you think I am wrong about something, then either ignore me or tell me why you disagree with something I have said.

Have I come across Cuckoo land? ?

[cotton]

This is as an example, the detail needs further investigation.
An option....
To view Off-Topic threads a punter must have posted "x" reviews in the previous "x" months.

To post on Off-Topic threads the punter should have posted "y" reviews in the previous "y" months.

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

All sounds ott but I assume that a simple change to the programme is possible to accommodate.

Beamer so now youre devising rules just to exclude Nik and KN from off topic because you dont agree with their viewpoints. Membership of the forum is already conditional on providing reviews so if you think anyone is falling short on that score why dont simply start suggesting to admin who you want banned , that would seem a more honest thing to do rather than contriving ridiculous new rules just to suit who you do and dont want on the forum.

[Beamer]

Beamer so now youre devising rules just to exclude Nik and KN from off topic because you dont agree with their viewpoints. Membership of the forum is already conditional on providing reviews so if you think anyone is falling short on that score why dont simply start suggesting to admin who you want banned , that would seem a more honest thing to do rather than contriving ridiculous new rules just to suit who you do and dont want on the forum.

Let's deal in facts.
If membership was already conditional on reviews as you suggest the two punters you mention would not be here.
Rule 1........is fairly simple to understand.
I am as entitled to suggest anything as is anyone else. 

[Davey Dykes]

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

And would this extend to those not punting at the moment, have no interest in punting at the moment nor will punt until there is some sort of vaccine available to the general population? FTR I sort of get what where you're coming from but it's for Admin/ owner to decide if there's a criteria to be met for this section and not the likes of you or me.

[Beamer]

And would this extend to those not punting at the moment, have no interest in punting at the moment nor will punt until there is some sort of vaccine available to the general population? FTR I sort of get what where you're coming from but it's for Admin/ owner to decide if there's a criteria to be met for this section and not the likes of you or me.

Your absolutely right. 
I was simply suggesting an option.
The vast majority of UKP members are "normal" punters and I am sure that the sooner we are able to return to one of our chosen hobbies the better.

[cotton]

Let's deal in facts.
If membership was already conditional on reviews as you suggest the two punters you mention would not be here.
Rule 1........is fairly simple to understand.
I am as entitled to suggest anything as is anyone else. 

Ok well you carry on devising rules to exclude and include who you do and dont want contributing, i guess its just harmless fantasy .
In the meantime let everyone be free to express an opinion 

[Xtro]

This is as an example, the detail needs further investigation.
An option....
To view Off-Topic threads a punter must have posted "x" reviews in the previous "x" months.

To post on Off-Topic threads the punter should have posted "y" reviews in the previous "y" months.

To ensure ongoing viewing of Off-Topic threads punter must post at least "z" reviews on a moving annual basis.

All sounds ott but I assume that a simple change to the programme is possible to accommodate.

Beamer, whilst I appreciate your proposed rules as set out above, I don't often punt.
I do however believe that I contribute quite a bit to both the punting section, (posting links, phone numbers and pics), and the off topic section, particularly the film,TV and Streaming thread. My jokes are fantastic too.   
So where would I reside in your equation?   

[Beamer]

Beamer, whilst I appreciate your proposed rules as set out above, I don't often punt.
I do however believe that I contribute quite a bit to both the punting section, (posting links, phone numbers and pics), and the off topic section, particularly the film,TV and Streaming thread. My jokes are fantastic too.   
So where would I reside in your equation?   

Good point.
It obviously needs looking at because often background information is as valuable as a review.

[Xtro]

Good point.
It obviously needs looking at because often background information is as valuable as a review.

I do kind of agree with your proposal but with caveat.

I'd hate to think that I couldn't participate in Off Topic just because I'm with a civvie for a period of time.
I'm a faithful guy.   

[Beamer]

I do kind of agree with your proposal but with caveat.

I'd hate to think that I couldn't participate in Off Topic just because I'm with a civvie for a period of time.
I'm a faithful guy.   

Agree.
On my punting patch - which is quite big, geographically- I have been able to both save money and spend more wisely after reading information on SP's who are/were of interest to me. 
I just feel that punters who only view the Off-Topic threads on the forum are not contributing to the main purpose and objectives of UKP.