Our man at the Eastleigh by-election

[Rex]

One of the candidates today appears to be Iain Maclennan (Lamb A 69-76):

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politic ... n___VIDEO/

[Avon]

Phew, for a moment there I thought we'd fronted up a Tory!

[Foureyes]

I note Avon's post. I presume that it was meant in a light-hearted way, but I was under the impression that this was a non-political forum. Presumably, Avon could not possibly object if someone was now to post that the Conservative candidate was excellent, or the UKIP candidate was a wally, or the Labour candidate was useless (I believe none of those things, but it seems to me that such comments are akin to what Avon has posted.) I believe that it is perfectly proper to observe that one of the candidates is an Old Blue - which is a simple matter of fact - but not whether one agrees or disagrees with any Party policies.
Perhaps the Moderator might like to look at this?
David

[Avon]

Not in the slightest - you could insert a lengthy paean of praise for the Tories. It's highly likely that the UKIP candidate was a wally, though.

This site needs to decide what it wants to be. I've seen no rule that it's apolitical - have you seen the one that says that the spaghetti god (PBUH) is a moderator? If it's a cyber-dormitory for baby boomers guarding their own threads, or trying to police the threads of of others then it's hardly going to be attractive to the next generations that regard forums as more organic and e-darwinism applies. Put something up and add some provocative synthesis and the thread grows; place boundaries around a dull topic and it doesn't.

Under this approach the only thread that will flourish is that damned mallet one. Is that the best that this site has to offer?

If what the readership wants is a bulletin board that says that X now runs a basketweaving consultancy in Y and that's all, then the technology is far simpler.

Is it any coincidence that the only younger ones that come on this site (a) don't stay and (b) seem to behave as if they have entered a Victorian parlour with the deference of Oliver Twist? I bet that they are more active on other sites.

That particular brick edifice south of Horsham took seven years of my life and many years later I'm still musing (but not particularly obsessive) about whether on balance it was personally a positive experience. For my part I want to see more contributors doing more analysis alongside the reminiscence. That would be a fascinating social record and discussion. Presently I come here to put my brain in neutral before I go flying, between the flight briefing and waiting for all the faults on the aircraft to be cleared by the engineers and the weather to clear.

4/10 - could do better.

[Mid A 15]

There is a section on this forum called General Chat Non CH.

Politics and all manner of topics were discussed on there in earlier years. Take a look. As the "hardcore" of posters has declined however "Mallett" now appears to be the only section there that gets a regular airing. A shame in my view as perhaps different people would post more frequently if there was more to discuss.

I appreciate that there is an element of "chicken and egg" with all this in that if one wants more discussions then one should start threads. For myself the archives will demonstrate that I have started plenty of threads over my tenure on this site but one becomes stale and it would be good for newer people to have a go.

Avon, you refer to musing as to whether or not your seven years at CH were positive or negative overall.

Perhaps you should start a thread (in CH Stuff of course ) and elaborate. Others may then be encouraged to participate too.

EDIT: Iain achieved 392 votes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... sults-2013

[J.R.]

Not in the slightest - you could insert a lengthy paean of praise for the Tories. It's highly likely that the UKIP candidate was a wally, though.

This site needs to decide what it wants to be. I've seen no rule that it's apolitical - have you seen the one that says that the spaghetti god (PBUH) is a moderator? If it's a cyber-dormitory for baby boomers guarding their own threads, or trying to police the threads of of others then it's hardly going to be attractive to the next generations that regard forums as more organic and e-darwinism applies. Put something up and add some provocative synthesis and the thread grows; place boundaries around a dull topic and it doesn't.

Under this approach the only thread that will flourish is that damned mallet one. Is that the best that this site has to offer?

If what the readership wants is a bulletin board that says that X now runs a basketweaving consultancy in Y and that's all, then the technology is far simpler.

Is it any coincidence that the only younger ones that come on this site (a) don't stay and (b) seem to behave as if they have entered a Victorian parlour with the deference of Oliver Twist? I bet that they are more active on other sites.

That particular brick edifice south of Horsham took seven years of my life and many years later I'm still musing (but not particularly obsessive) about whether on balance it was personally a positive experience. For my part I want to see more contributors doing more analysis alongside the reminiscence. That would be a fascinating social record and discussion. Presently I come here to put my brain in neutral before I go flying, between the flight briefing and waiting for all the faults on the aircraft to be cleared by the engineers and the weather to clear.

4/10 - could do better.

Did surprisingly well for a wally, though.

'Call-Me-Dave's' reaction was as expected, "Mid Term Blues"! Possibly, but only two and a half years to get it sorted !

[DavebytheSea]

As always, Mid A 15 writes calmly, objectively and sensibly. My own view (and I am a Moderator) is that, as Andy says, the non CH section of the forum is a good place for political debate. However in the case of the Eastliegh by-election, there is real Housey interest and therefore political observation of the candidates would be perfectly proper here. Although living far from the area, my understanding is that coverage of the "minor" candidates has been woefully slim - I would dearly love to have heard a bit more about Dr Ian's background and views.

By the way, I am not altogether sure of the meaning of "wally". I take it to be some pressure group or association within the conservative/UKIP part of the political spectrum. Is the left wing equivalent a "lolly" - perhaps having originated from the Lollards??

[Avon]

By the way, I am not altogether sure of the meaning of "wally". I take it to be some pressure group or association within the conservative/UKIP part of the political spectrum. Is the left wing equivalent a "lolly" - perhaps having originated from the Lollards??

That's rather good, with your permission I'll use that with some of my more 'fabian' chums.