Descent Article re CROW by Mr O 'Doc
- Thread starter The Old Ruminator
- Start date
- Status
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
If you had to make a comparison for airing views between here and Descent you might think that online there are many " Keyboard Warriors " too ready to jump on your remarks without understanding their input. Descent gives time for a reasoned reply if that's necessary rather than the opportunity for some hothead here to try to start an argument. I think there are areas in this thread that show that. If you value Descent be aware off the issues ( pun ) now facing magazines who have a fair sized market abroad. No doubt Brexit related though I cant be bothered to look into it all.
2xw
Active member
BradW said:
Hehe
"cancel culture" is a made up word for scared dimwits, but I don't think you or your opinions have been cancelled Peter, in fact this anti crow platform has had more than it's fair share of coverage - despite being a rather extreme opinion from a rather tiny group of people. I think they've been following the tactics of Nigel Faragea little too closely! Perhaps next you'll be massaging BCA votes with a joint collaboration between Darkness Below and Dalesbridge Analytica?
I don't look forward to any more opinions on this in Descent. Perhaps it's time the ~10 people still moaning accepted that vote by the membership and quit using Descent as their personal ego massage board - keep your whining to your Priderati sinister cabals and let the rest of us read about some bloody caving!
Brains
Well-known member
In the recent past Descent has published letters with counter letters at the same time, presumably not be coincidence but by soliciting a right of reply where the editorial team felt it was required... As others have said or implied, stirring this croc of shit is a contentious minority stance?
2xw
Active member
droid said:
14% against 23% for.
How many actively campaigned? Bet you can't name 10. I stand by my comparison to UKIP
A minority cared about the debate back then, nobody cares anymore, it's done and dead. There's a point at which folk need to start putting the work in like Dave et al or just move on.
Or, if you're gunna start the arguing, can you at least make it darkly/absurdly comic again? My favourite bit was when Badlad took that cake with poison in it to the CSCC meeting. Or when two people debated to hungover checc delegates and everyone melted into a puddle of despair.
David Rose
Active member
I see Old Ruminator and Mrdoc are trying to defend themselves.
I objected to the first not because of a Descent article that I still haven't seen, but because of his rude and sweeping comments on this forum that my colleagues and I have been indulging in a "waste of time and effort".
I objected to the second because of what I consider to be his discourtesy, and his ignorance of basic journalistic procedures. He knows me. At the very least, it would have been polite to have been given a heads up that he had written this piece, and that I should expect to see it in print.
As for a right of reply: when journalists write articles, even opinion pieces, they generally seek to represent the opposing point of view, even if only to summarise it briefly and criticise it. In a small community such as caving, where some continually carp about how there are too many divisions, and how, some claim, this forum encourages them, I suggest it would especially valuable to observe such practices. But apparently they do not apply to retired West Country GPs, whose mates then go on to sneer that a project endorsed by the BCA is a waste of time and effort, and that their other mates think the same way.
Not a great way to preserve harmony, I'd suggest.
I'm told Mrdoc is thinking of becoming the BCA P&I officer. Maybe he will discover that if does take on this important role it would be sensible to maintain amicable relations with his colleagues, such as the BCA newsletter editor. Oh! Goodness! That would be me!
I objected to the first not because of a Descent article that I still haven't seen, but because of his rude and sweeping comments on this forum that my colleagues and I have been indulging in a "waste of time and effort".
I objected to the second because of what I consider to be his discourtesy, and his ignorance of basic journalistic procedures. He knows me. At the very least, it would have been polite to have been given a heads up that he had written this piece, and that I should expect to see it in print.
As for a right of reply: when journalists write articles, even opinion pieces, they generally seek to represent the opposing point of view, even if only to summarise it briefly and criticise it. In a small community such as caving, where some continually carp about how there are too many divisions, and how, some claim, this forum encourages them, I suggest it would especially valuable to observe such practices. But apparently they do not apply to retired West Country GPs, whose mates then go on to sneer that a project endorsed by the BCA is a waste of time and effort, and that their other mates think the same way.
Not a great way to preserve harmony, I'd suggest.
I'm told Mrdoc is thinking of becoming the BCA P&I officer. Maybe he will discover that if does take on this important role it would be sensible to maintain amicable relations with his colleagues, such as the BCA newsletter editor. Oh! Goodness! That would be me!
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
I was going to post a reply to David but deleted it . I think that I might go caving instead.
David Rose
Active member
Why would you bother? Sounds like a waste of time and effort to me.
The Old Ruminator
Well-known member
Going tonight but please note that I was quoting quotes so the quote you quoted was not verbatim from me. You may have mis quoted my quote. I did say that I was " on the fence ". :halo:
Duncan Price
Active member
BradW said:
When I saw it I thought that it reflects the editorial bias against CROW (as well as the Ogof Boring single entrance policy extolled by the same rag). I have read the article and pretty much came to the same conclusions that others have reached - its simply peddling the the same old arguments with the added insult of accusing those trying to get caving covered by CROW of wasting their time and BCA's money.
It was only one page out of a very good issue.
David Rose
Active member
Old Ruminator, you are being disingenuous. This is your original post:
"In the latest issue received today. I think this fairly sums up the antipathy felt by many cavers in the south to CROW ( sic ) and the continuing waste of time and effort pursing it."
There is nothing there to indicate you are merely "quoting" others, and that this his not your view. The plain and ordinary meaning of this statement is that you think that those of us who have worked hard for almost two years on a voluntary basis to do what we can to pursue a BCA policy have been engaged on a "continuing waste of time and effort".
I can't imagine why you can't see that. Of course, you could apologise. But I'm not holding my breath.
"In the latest issue received today. I think this fairly sums up the antipathy felt by many cavers in the south to CROW ( sic ) and the continuing waste of time and effort pursing it."
There is nothing there to indicate you are merely "quoting" others, and that this his not your view. The plain and ordinary meaning of this statement is that you think that those of us who have worked hard for almost two years on a voluntary basis to do what we can to pursue a BCA policy have been engaged on a "continuing waste of time and effort".
I can't imagine why you can't see that. Of course, you could apologise. But I'm not holding my breath.
I took what OR said in explanation in good faith, and now David has pointed it out, I can see that perhaps the misunderstanding is simply down to poor grammar. I suspect OR means that it's the many cavers in the south that consider it all a waste of time and effort. It would be a shame if a simple mistake that only needs a red mark in the homework book led to a falling out and more division.
- Status