The "Incredibly Impossible to Derail This Thread" thread | Page 845 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

I point back to @The Hole Got Fixed’s original post, in which the statement was (to paraphrase) that such conversation should be PM-only, and they were sure others agreed…

You cannot have that statement that such a conversation shouldn’t be had publicly – and this is from someone who dislikes parts of that conversation and who, tongue-very-obviously-in-cheek, made the first comment that led to what I believe is the most objectionable…

Object to their post, tell them they are wrong if you believe so, but do not say that a whole conversation that was largely jokey, and obviously jokey – and I’ll happily point to where there’s clear – should be PM-only, which was the suggestion made.

How could I know where someone would take my jokey conversation half-a-dozen posts and a couple of hours plus after I’d started it?

If a post in a conversation is wrong, deal with the post, but don’t damn the whole conversation and say it should only have happened privately.

Here is the point I would make: SS? has, above, pointed to the comment that threw up this bone of contention.

The reply to objections to that comment has been to suggest it would not have happened had the conversation happened in another thread.

That’s not what’s said, it is suggested such comments should be PM only.

I would suggest that whatever thread the conversation happened in, the same objection to the post that caused that reaction would have occurred.

Should that be so, it is up to management to decide whether the original statement is allowed on the forum – otherwise you’ve just got the same person objecting in whichever other thread that conversation happened.

It can be argued by those who want to that it happened in the wrong thread, but the objection was to it being stated on the forum.

If there is a place on the forum, in whatever thread, for the remarks that caused that response, then somebody suggesting that type of thing should be PM-only is missing the wide breadth of conversation that occurs on this forum, and should be advised so.

Should there be something with the original statement that it’s felt shouldn’t be publicly stated on the forum, and that the objection was justified, then surely advice is necessary there.

Otherwise it just seems we’re being asked to move a contentious conversation from one thread to another, which has happened, without any resolve about whether exactly the same conversation can carry on elsewhere.

But we are now discussing the fallout, rather than understanding whether the butchery comments – in part or full – are acceptable on the Forum (as it has just been suggested they might have been better elsewhere), or whether the suggestion they should be PM-only – which most objections have been to – was correct.

There’s no point putting the conversation elsewhere if the same person is still going to be saying we shouldn’t be saying such things outside PMs.

Perhaps the objections have been misunderstood. They were not to the comments being challenged, as others challenged and were not criticised, but to the suggestion that such talk should be kept to PM.

I don’t think so.

What’s the point of a forum if it starts being suggested legitimate subjects and opinions be moved to private messages?