Geaorge wrote: > No, don't let Adrian chase you off! If anyone leaves due to Adrian, > one could say that "he wins", having driven his opponents from the > field. > > At best, just ignore his posts if you can't bear them. (And if you > have a reader that structures the messages in a hierarchy, you could > easily ignore any replies to Adrian's posts.) > > > Personally, I think George should ban you as you are too disruptive even if > > you amend your ways. > > Well banning is not something we typically do here. I do think that, > for some of us anyway, Adrian is useful in that he brings up points > that WILL be encountered about various issues in the outside world and > thus helps us to prepare to deal with them. Others should just ignore > his posts.
I've been considering this situation for a few days now and, understanding the frustration that Adrian causes on many lists (sorry........ on every list that I see him posting on) it is tempting to introduce new rules. However, this list has bumbled along for many, many years now under the light-touch leadership of yourselves, George and Bob, and for many it is an easy going, not always on topic, pub-like chat forum. I like it that way, as a relaxed group where things wander occasionally when there is a shortage of waterways subject matter to discuss. I'm not convinced that introducing new rules to contain a man who WILL NOT be convinced (or even, to concede just one alternative point)of any contrary argument is the best way to go about it. Steve H has made a very good point that AS does put himself forward as the voice of all of us to BW and any other authority that will accept him. This does, naturally, mean that instead of ignoring him there is a massive itch to counter his arguments (where necessary; and not of them all are completely incorrect IMHO) otherwise he is able to claim that he has the implied support of his audience due to their silence. He has managed to get himself on BWAF(?, I think it's called) the BW advisory forum that is supposed to have only representatives of ORGANISATIONS/GROUPS on it and yet he doesn't represent anyone other than himself and his own views. So, do we use a great sledge hammer to crack the nut ;-)) or do we allow things to continue, as is, with the broken threads and controversy (which will always happen with or without AS)? The choice is yours but, reluctantly, I'm voting for the status quo unless I can be convinced of the need for change (What? Being convinced by another's argument, we can't have that can we, because I am always right!!!!! ;-))) However, if curtailing AS's activities is going to be the only way that long-standing and respected members, such as Mike Clarke and others, can be persuaded to remain in the group then go for it. Roger
