More bad news for BCA modernisers

[Madness]

BCA test website

This is really rather good!

By that do you mean it's fitting for the 21st century? It makes the old BCA website seem pre-historic.

 

[blackshiver]

But the old website has worked perfectly well for many years and the grey background (nicely flourished with green & pink text) has a certain character. Why on earth would anyone want to change it.....

https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

 

[mikem]

Burn him, burn him...  :chair:

 

[PeteHall]

But the old website has worked perfectly well for many years and the grey background (nicely flourished with green & pink text) has a certain character. Why on earth would anyone want to change it.....

https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic, or if you actually mean it...

 

[JoshW]

But the old website has worked perfectly well for many years and the grey background (nicely flourished with green & pink text) has a certain character. Why on earth would anyone want to change it.....

https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

I'm not sure if this is meant to be sarcastic, or if you actually mean it...

I read it sarcastically, but now you mention it... :blink:

In fairness I don?t think the pink and green text are actually that bad. They?re clearly there as titles to highlight things, it fits with the rest of the website style. It?s just a bit of dated styling overall.

 

[Pitlamp]

Some are used to a rough and tumble sort of discussion.

I'm used to a more gentle, nuanced debate where all views are valued and  no-one thinks they have a monopoly on the correct answers. People frequently change their  views and positions as arguments evolve.

It is possible to use nuance and examples with people  understanding what you mean. I can say things like "she is like the sun to me" without people assuming her face is is a molten nuclear reaction .

I sometimes judge things wrong but there is nowhere else for people like me to go.

I could of course do what a lot of other people like me do and just stay away, you don't have to be banned, the tone of a place is usually enough.

I thought your post above was very well put Darren.

As an example, for a long time I wasn't in favour of the CRoW push. As a result of many reasonable posts on here, I've gradually changed my mind. Although still wary about the possible effects on relations with normally friendly landowners when we do need to ask for permission for digging, science projects etc, I've been persuaded that it'll make for a better situation for everybody (at least here in the Dales) and (most of) my fears have been dispelled.

I don't want to re-open that one in this topic (please!) - I just wanted to agree with Darren that amicable discussion always works far better than abuse. Most reasonable folk can be persuaded by sensible logic. Vulgarity and insults tend only to make folk more entrenched. Vent your spleen by all means but don't expect it to win many people over to your point of view.

 

[nearlywhite]

So it goes on. Jenny P, the nearest thing to a neutral in all this, dares suggest that maybe, just possibly some of the changes may have gone a bit far and have had unforseen consequences and the attacks starts.

Nearest thing to a neutral? In what regard? There's more than one political axis here - it's not just pro crow and anti.

Not wanting to speak for Jenny, (she is more than able to herself!) the 'unforeseen consequences' are not necessarily the result of changes going too far but perhaps not far enough - which I would point out is due to compromise. She merely points out that they need resolution, not one way or the other.

I don't think anyone has attacked Jenny, certainly hasn't accused her of being an unthinking cult member, so perhaps don't throw stones?

In any case I hope my submission to council today will create the space for genuine debate, the outcome of which I will post on UKC for comment.

 

[droid]

As an outsider, this discussion is hilarious: so many entrenched people attempting to make out that their entrenched position is neutral.

The BCA needs a 'reset' button. Scrap the convoluted waffle that is the Constitution and Manual of Operations and replace it with a document that is unambiguous and more suited to a small organisation for a minority pastime.

That'll stop people pushing things in an allowable way.

 

[mikem]

But they'd have to agree on the rewording!

 

[droid]

But they'd have to agree on the rewording!

Yes.

Be the slowest reset since the Permian Extinction Event.

 

[mikem]

That was pretty much the whole of the Triassic & Jurassic (time of the dinosaurs) 

 

[langcliffe]

That was pretty much the whole of the Triassic & Jurassic (time of the dinosaurs) 

If there were dinosaurs around, I reckon one could say that there had been a recovery!

The recovery time for the Permian mass extinction event is considered to be between 5 and 8 million years.

 

[darren]

I've stayed away for a few hours. Sometimes a rest is needed to put things back in perspective.

Nice to know I'm not as much an outlier as I sometimes feel.

 

[mikem]

Depends how you want to define the recovery, for the number of marine species to get back to the same level was nearer 100 million years - & the dinosaurs only evolved during that period (after the mass extinction).

 

[Fulk]

Mind you, the dinosaurs were one of the most successful groups of animals ever to walk on this Earth, and were in the ascendancy for some 165 m years (compared with the mammals' 65 m years). As far as I am aware, their demise was down to events way beyond their control, not self-inflicted (as it's possible ours' might well be). Maybe we should use 'dinosaur' as a compliment, rather than as a term of abuse. 

 

[mikem]

Indeed, but then they didn't have the ability to do anything to change the outcome (whilst we potentially could).

 

[Duck ditch]

what makes you think the dinosaurs have disappeared I watch them on daily basis. Which mass extinction are we talking about?
I wish we all could be a little more concerned about the mass extinction currently happening but we are not. 

 

[mikem]

No species ever has, it's part of the reason why Richard Dawkins entitled his book "The Selfish Gene".

 

[langcliffe]

Depends how you want to define the recovery, for the number of marine species to get back to the same level was nearer 100 million years - & the dinosaurs only evolved during that period (after the mass extinction).

1. You're absolutely right, it depends on one's definition. I was putting forward the generally accepted scholarly view.

2. Thank you. I have actually studied the evolution of dinosaurs, and I am aware that they evolved from the Permian archosaurs, and that the oldest known specimens date back to about 17 Ma after the start of the Triassic.

 

[mikem]

Sorry, that statement should have had an "of course" in it - it was for emphasis, not to teach you to suck eggs!