(Slightly late) CW Awards for 13th-20th May

[cover drive man]

So if someone criticises you you've no right to reply?

And if you do reply, it shouldn't be noticed because the person who's made the accusation isn't reading the thread?

I'm actually disappointed Kev hasn't acknowledged what I said in reply to him, TBH.

Let it go richard mate.

 

[Richard]

That's just not the way I do things, TBH.

 

[cover drive man]

That's just not the way I do things, TBH.

O.k just trying to help.

 

[Langeveldt]

I've had enough of this thread, I don't want to close it but absolutely nothing is coming of it except sniping people's posting styles and personalities.

Bit sad but if people really want to comment on that kind of stuff then do it off forum please. The name and shame list for this thread for people who've argued pointlessly about pointless crap () is depressingly long, make your point and leave a la Goughy or don't make your point at all.

FWIW, I completely agree with Mr Gelman if not the way he presented his argument. The one-liners have always been a pet-hate of mine, especially the question mark at the end to mask the fact you're trying to make the recepient look like a gimp without actually saying something witty or helpful.

Lay down your guns.. Take up the word of the PY

 

[Swervy]

I've had enough of this thread, I don't want to close it but absolutely nothing is coming of it except sniping people's posting styles and personalities.

Bit sad but if people really want to comment on that kind of stuff then do it off forum please. The name and shame list for this thread for people who've argued pointlessly about pointless crap () is depressingly long, make your point and leave a la Goughy or don't make your point at all.

FWIW, I completely agree with Mr Gelman if not the way he presented his argument. The one-liners have always been a pet-hate of mine, especially the question mark at the end to mask the fact you're trying to make the recepient look like a gimp without actually saying something witty or helpful.

PY, if this goes into a rant, it isnt really aimed at you

I agree in principle to what you you are saying PY, but I think if people have an issue then it is perfectly reasonable to reply to that issue. I think Richard originally said something which some people took issue with, they replied, and Richard explained that he didnt mean it like they thought it meant. It should really have been left at that.

I personally think I didn't say one thing that was out of turn at any point in this thread. I have apologised if my 'one-liner' was taken the wrong way. And yet all I get is a torrent of abuse from a CW Staff Member, abuse which called into doubt my ability to use correct punctuation, use smilies correctly and implied all I do is make snide remarks about people. Quite frankly, it is completely out of order. It has made me feel a tad uncomfortable posting on this site for a while now, but I will ride the wave.

Although I do have a gripe (not major mind, after all, this is just a web forum, not the be all and end all). I do resent the implication that my 'one liner' was used for the purpose of making 'Mr Gelman' look like a gimp. That intention simply was not there. If I wanted to make out that I am more intelligent or more worthy, I would do it in more obvious ways, I am not scared to put someones nose out of joint if I so wish. I do not have any intention of doing so however.

PY, you say 'FWIW, I completely agree with Mr Gelman if not the way he presented his argument'. The guy has got away with something which someone else may well have been villified for. The guy is a CW Staff Member, he is meant to, as far as I am concerned , be an ambassador of sorts for the site. What kind of behaviour is being endorsed by a comment like 'I completely agree with Mr Gelman if not the way he presented his argument'. He has been let off the hook in effect for one of the worst outbursts I have seen on this site..and it is out of order.

My gut feeling on this is there is somewhat of a cliquey atmosphere emerging on this site. I have never felt the need to become part of the MSN users, who can discuss whatever off the forum, I have never felt the need to basically brown nose anyone on here(and there is a hell of a lot of brown nosing that goes on by certain members, its embarressing to be honest) . (Again this is certainly not aimed at 'pasag' (I would prefer to use his forum name, rather than Mr Gelman, or Zac or what ever his name is, to be honest) or you PY) and there is a hell of a lot of what I would call nastiness towards some forum members that seems to go un-noticed or unchecked

And for me, maybe not getting involved in the cliquey side of things (maybe I am wrong on that, but it is my perception) means Pasag gets the non-fuzzy end of this particular stick, which I think is wrong.

As I say, I am feeling a tad uncomfortable about all this at the moment, but I have more pressing things to concern myself with over the next few weeks, and so I MAY not post on here as much over the coming weeks. I hope this little issue blows over, but I hope that someone may have taken on board some of the things I have mentioned here.

This is a great site, lets not not dwell on this too much. I would like Pasag (Mr G) to come on here and maybe discuss the issues in a more level headed manner, but if he doesn't so be it.

Rant end

 

[GIMH]

Hmmmm - I feel that CW was much more cliquey about a year ago than it is now tbh

 

[silentstriker]

Agreed. After Ovalgate, people seemed to retreat into that annoying Asia vs. Non-Asia shell for the most part and it was just annoying to have that spill over into everything.

This is much more fun.

 

[Swervy]

Gelman's certainly not fighting my battles as such, but do you really expect I feel better with no-one backing me up on these sorts of issues? He's not the only one, either - Halsey has done the same in this thread if only once (and, and it's something I mostly certainly am greatful for, him standing-up for me when this sort of thing happens - and it always will, and always has - is not unusual). Do you think I don't wonder "am I being a completely unreasonable ****? Was it totally stupid of me to post that?"

I am glad you do think about what you say on here! My point was merely maybe you should think about what you are ABOUT to post, then maybe misunderstanding like this wouldn't occur

On the poor punctuation issue... TBH it really is something that baffles me. Most people either bother or they don't - Anil, for instance, never writes a capital letter and I've not seen him do for years. Why, I'm not sure. But... well, as I say, I have thought in the past that your posting style is a bit strange. I don't really want to make an issue of it, but I don't understand why you use partially proper punctuation\CAPS-use. Either do it to the best of your ability (we all, obviously, make the occasional slip-up) or don't make any effort at all IMO. As I say - don't get the idea that it's a big issue, because it's not. Just saying I can see what Gelman means. Although, with a few exceptions (Anil, for instance, and sledger is another one) those who use good punctuation are among the best posters and those that don't are pretty well identified as rabble.

To be honest mate, it is a non-issue, but as I say, if it is an issue, then some people need to look at their lifes priorities and maybe do a bit of a re-shuffle....but if it really interests you that much, the reason why sometimes I don't use caps to start sentences or whatever is because I have a filty habit that sometimes means its easier to type with one hand.........I smoke As long as people can get the drift of what I am saying, then thats ok with me.

I guess the implication is that because sometimes my punctuation isn't 100%, then I am not one of the 'best posters'..it is something I can live with, however, I find it a shame that people with judge on a few missed capitals rather than ability to debate a point.

On the other thing... the smilies... again, I also feel that you often seem to use certain smilies (be it the or, mostly, the - though, interestingly, I never got that feeling with the old favourite, the , maybe you should go back to it, it's a simple shortcut even if the mouse-icon isn't there at the moment) in a rather contemptuous-laugh\smile sort of way. It doesn't really bother me for more than a second or two because I'm generally pretty thick-skinned. But perhaps I should mention that it is something that has got on my wick a few times.

Look mate, you have had a thing about the smilies I use for a few years now. I just don't get it.
For me its if I think something is funny, if its something that might get taken th wrong way, but I want someone to know that it has been said in a friendly manner, or that I just feel like smiling right that that moment...whats the other one....oh , yeah you are right I dont use it because it isn't there in those 15 that are easily gettable, nothing sinister about it, I am inherently lazy, especially about things like smillies. For crying out loud, I am 35 years old in 6 weeks, I cannot beleive I am trying to justify my use of round yellow faces on the internet. (and that means I find it funny)

And finally, I might add - you might think Gelman's "flipping out like a paranoid Hells Angel at Altamont"? I can assure you from not-inconsiderable experience, he's not. This sort of thing happens (I've been there myself, before your most recent return, check that West Indies-England thread that I mentioned I was about being dug-up, that is why) and you can bet your life it's not due to isolated incidents, nor him alone that feels such a way. The fact that he has always remained one of the most-respected posters on here should tell you a bit, too.

Well maybe he should re-consider his methods of addressing any issues he has then.
Yeah, I have never had a problem with his posts to be honest, he appears to be a pretty intelligent guy who knows his cricket. The fact that he remains one of the most respected posters on here tells me jack to be honest. The way he reacted to what people said on this thread was well out of order, no matter whether it is isolated or not.

Another "finally, I might add", and not in your direction, more towards the boss, Pete, Jack, maybe even Kyle - from me, please don't close this thread. Stuff like this is much better said than unsaid.

I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully this could become quite a constructive thread.

 

[Swervy]

Hmmmm - I feel that CW was much more cliquey about a year ago than it is now tbh

fair enough, as I say, its just my perception. I am not saying my perception is reality.

 

[GIMH]

Well it's your opinion, there's obviously no right and wrong

 

[Swervy]

Well it's your opinion, there's obviously no right and wrong

hope you aren't having a go at me and just hiding behind the smilie




I am kidding by the way, this post was deffo in jest

 

[Richard]

To be honest mate, it is a non-issue, but as I say, if it is an issue, then some people need to look at their lifes priorities and maybe do a bit of a re-shuffle....but if it really interests you that much, the reason why sometimes I don't use caps to start sentences or whatever is because I have a filty habit that sometimes means its easier to type with one hand.........I smoke As long as people can get the drift of what I am saying, then thats ok with me.

I guess the implication is that because sometimes my punctuation isn't 100%, then I am not one of the 'best posters'..it is something I can live with, however, I find it a shame that people with judge on a few missed capitals rather than ability to debate a point.

That's not the implication at all. As I say - it is a bit of a non-issue, and I don't think Gelman was actually judging you on it - just mentioning it in passing. I only mentioned it because, as I say, you are a bit unusual in making a semi-effort.

Look mate, you have had a thing about the smilies I use for a few years now. I just don't get it.

I certainly don't "have a thing" about your use of smilies, I just used to find it very funny that you used that particular one so much. And I thought it might be funny to bring that up again. Maybe not.

For me its if I think something is funny, if its something that might get taken th wrong way, but I want someone to know that it has been said in a friendly manner, or that I just feel like smiling right that that moment...whats the other one....oh , yeah you are right I dont use it because it isn't there in those 15 that are easily gettable, nothing sinister about it, I am inherently lazy, especially about things like smillies. For crying out loud, I am 35 years old in 6 weeks, I cannot beleive I am trying to justify my use of round yellow faces on the internet. (and that means I find it funny)

Age doesn't really matter. And I honestly think you slightly underestimate things by saying "they're just little yellow things and this is just an internet forum". Well... if it wasn't important I don't think many of us would bother. And the smilies do convey quite a bit, they are not simply a little meaningless picture. As I said - your use of the laugh smiley does come accross as a contemptuous-laugh sometimes. Not always, but sometimes. And as you said to me earlier (and as a good few have said to me a good few times), there are certain traits of posting that can cause problems. I don't feel Gelman was completely unjust in saying what he did.

Oh... and is easily gettable. A colon, and capital-D - that's far easier than moving your hand to the mouse, moving the mouse to the smilies pad, clicking... etc. I never do that, I only ever post smilies by typing.

Well maybe he should re-consider his methods of addressing any issues he has then.
Yeah, I have never had a problem with his posts to be honest, he appears to be a pretty intelligent guy who knows his cricket. The fact that he remains one of the most respected posters on here tells me jack to be honest. The way he reacted to what people said on this thread was well out of order, no matter whether it is isolated or not.

I tried to get it accross earlier - don't know whether you read my post before replying to Pete (PY)'s but this is certainly not the first time Gelman has said something like this - what you perceive as a disgraceful outburst. And the fact that he is a Staff Member and can say this (and even have a Mod like Pete come out and support him) should tell you something. Sometimes there are people who he thinks are out of order. But he'd not say anything if he thought he was in a minority.

 

[Richard]

Hmmmm - I feel that CW was much more cliquey about a year ago than it is now tbh

As regards this... Nasser Hussain put it well in his autobiography. "Cliques" are a very overstated thing. If people get on well, they're going to talk to each other (on MSN in this case), and they're going to say things in support of each other. It's not "cliquey", it's just human nature. People like Zac are very well respected by a wide range of people, and for good reason.

 

[GIMH]

As regards this... Nasser Hussain put it well in his autobiography. "Cliques" are a very overstated thing. If people get on well, they're going to talk to each other (on MSN in this case), and they're going to say things in support of each other. It's not "cliquey", it's just human nature. People like Zac are very well respected by a wide range of people, and for good reason.

People talking to each other on MSN, to me, does not consitute a clique. However, I don't think I'll take it any further than that - it would just stir up some trouble that doesn't need to stirred IMO.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you should worry about that, TBH. As I said earlier - things need to be said otherwise, well, they just boil under.

 

[Swervy]

I tried to get it accross earlier - don't know whether you read my post before replying to Pete (PY)'s but this is certainly not the first time Gelman has said something like this - what you perceive as a disgraceful outburst. And the fact that he is a Staff Member and can say this (and even have a Mod like Pete come out and support him) should tell you something. Sometimes there are people who he thinks are out of order. But he'd not say anything if he thought he was in a minority.

yeah i did read your post before replying to PY.

I am really struggling with the concept that because he is a Staff Member then there is more weight to his outburst in that he was almost right to behave in such a manner. Sorry, i do not subscribe to such a point of view. The fact he is a Staff member on this site stands for absolutely nothing in my mind. My concern is that that someone who probably has been allowed to become a Staff member can feel it is acceptable to abuse someone who is basically a punter on this site. Yeah, it is me as a punter (amongst others) who clicks on the advertising banners on this site, which helps keep this site up and running. If seen in that way, on a business level, you will see how out of order what he has said is. The fact he is a staff member means he should be dealing with his gripes in a more adult and resposible way

If he accuses me of poor form, what on earth has he displayed. At least I have the nous to back myself on this, he could not actually come up with a valid explanation for hurling his rubbish at me. That is bad form of Greg Chappell in 1981/82 proportions.

So he wouldn't say anything if he thought he was in minority....what kind of endorsment for his opinion forming and expression is that. I think he is probably better than that!

 

[Swervy]

People talking to each other on MSN, to me, does not consitute a clique. However, I don't think I'll take it any further than that - it would just stir up some trouble that doesn't need to stirred IMO.

yeah I agree, going on MSN and chatting doesn't make it cliquey in itself, however, IMO there is a cliquey feel sometimes on here....and this talk of 'he is a staff member, and he is well respected' of reinforces my feeling on that. As I say, its just my perception, I may well be well off the mark.

 

[Richard]

yeah i did read your post before replying to PY.

I am really struggling with the concept that because he is a Staff Member then there is more weight to his outburst in that he was almost right to behave in such a manner. Sorry, i do not subscribe to such a point of view. The fact he is a Staff member on this site stands for absolutely nothing in my mind. My concern is that that someone who probably has been allowed to become a Staff member can feel it is acceptable to abuse someone who is basically a punter on this site. Yeah, it is me as a punter (amongst others) who clicks on the advertising banners on this site, which helps keep this site up and running. If seen in that way, on a business level, you will see how out of order what he has said is. The fact he is a staff member means he should be dealing with his gripes in a more adult and resposible way

If he accuses me of poor form, what on earth has he displayed. At least I have the nous to back myself on this, he could not actually come up with a valid explanation for hurling his rubbish at me. That is bad form of Greg Chappell in 1981/82 proportions.

So he wouldn't say anything if he thought he was in minority....what kind of endorsment for his opinion forming and expression is that. I think he is probably better than that!

I happen to think it's a positive reflection on him, that's why I mentioned it. He's not making-up his opinions based on that of others', he's putting-up and shutting-up unless he thinks there's a base of similar feeling.

What I mean by what I said about him being a Staff Member is not that him saying things like he does from time to time hold any more weight, simply that the fact that he has not been punished for saying them should tell you something. It's kind of tricky, because you don't have the context I do, and to you it may appear that he's just said this to you out of the blue. But that simply isn't the case.

 

[Swervy]

As regards this... Nasser Hussain put it well in his autobiography. "Cliques" are a very overstated thing. If people get on well, they're going to talk to each other (on MSN in this case), and they're going to say things in support of each other. It's not "cliquey", it's just human nature. People like Zac are very well respected by a wide range of people, and for good reason.

Well cliques in fact can be extremely damaging (in real life anyway).

All this using Zac and Gelman etc, don't like it. It's a method people use to establish some sort of hierachy, in that it can alienate people people who arent 'in there'...thats what I mean by cliquey.

And yes, I am sure 'Zac' is well respected, but it doesnt excuse random outbursts such as yesterdays

 

[Richard]

yeah I agree, going on MSN and chatting doesn't make it cliquey in itself, however, IMO there is a cliquey feel sometimes on here....and this talk of 'he is a staff member, and he is well respected' of reinforces my feeling on that. As I say, its just my perception, I may well be well off the mark.

We Staffies are often prone to stick together, yes (or at least that's my perception of it, someone like Fuller might just disagree), but... again, I say, that's not being cliquey, it's just human nature. I found the same thing when I appeared to have accused Matt Pitt of racism, before my days on Staff.