[Pennine MC]

Good evening gentlemen

Confessions first off - I have joined as a direct result of this debate, but that doesnt mean I wont stick around. I dont wish to unduly labour the points made already in RMweb's defence, by PMP and others, but I think I have comments that may be useful

QUOTE (Ben Manicom @ 26 Aug 2006, 18:10) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Not meaning to stir things but they complaining about us, If they truely did cause this they should be sorry for this problem not having a go at other modellers.
I'd rather we weren't all lumped together as 'they', please Ben; we dont think and speak with one voice. The flippant comment you quoted about this forum was made by a very new RMweb member, I suspect it was tongue in cheek but in any case he wasnt one of the irresponsible element involved in the Bachmann debates (quite the opposite in fact)

With his particular insights, Andy Y may have different views, but from where I'm standing, I'd sense Bachmann's disquiet to have been caused by 1. gross over-reaction to a simple coupling problem, which they (Dennis Lovett) tried to resolve, 2. certain libellous accusations, which I obviously wont repeat, and 3. the pooh-poohing of their open apology for an error on MREMag forum. The most serious of these actions (2) was down to a mere handful of members

QUOTE (bangerblueed @ 26 Aug 2006, 19:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...I would also like to point out that if postings are made which are OTT then the poster usually gets posted down in flames

by other forum members so if Andy does go on holiday it is NOT OUT OF CONTROL far from it modt of the members of rmweb are sensible and intelligent people ...
Ed makes a very good point here. We have a broad spectrum of opinion and some lively debates; there are a few people who tend to predictably rub each other up the wrong way

but hey, that's life. We're usually adult enough to backpedal a bit or agree to differ

QUOTE (Gary @ 26 Aug 2006, 20:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...However the online community does contain its fair share of armchair critics who want to make a name for themselves and who get a kick out of winding things up a knotch. They hide behind the cloak of anonimity.

This is something that a paper based magazine cannot do..
Hmmm. A staffer on a paper-based mag can easily join a web forum, under the 'cloak of anonymity', and fuel controversial debates. Of course, I'm speaking hypothetically now

Anyway, that's enough for tonight

. Whoever of you are involved with Andy on talks to find some way forward, I wish you all luck

 

[Pennine MC]

QUOTE (spongebob @ 27 Aug 2006, 22:25) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>... Does (this issue) mean they (Bachmann) won't bother keeping tabs on what is said? I very much doubt it.
So do I, Sponge. They said on RMweb that they monitor websites, and if a future model gets a particularly large amount of criticism, they'll maybe make improvements to it quietly (as they did with the original 37s). But I also doubt they'll give us the satisfaction of knowing that we've had any influence on the matter.

 

[Pennine MC]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 29 Aug 2006, 12:36) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>RM web has been closed.

I realise I could well be missing something here, but can somebody clarify what this comment actually means, please?

 

[Pennine MC]

Thanks for that, Dennis, I was wondering if the intermittent server problems on RMweb were causing some confusion

 

[Pennine MC]

QUOTE (cig1705 @ 30 Aug 2006, 20:54) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Back on topic, having seen the original thread develop from a 25lb practice bomb into a WE177 free fall nuclear bomb, I can defend Mr. Hoonsou thoroughly. The initial comments were made rather rashly as "Well, it's Bachmann-what do you expect" type replies,
Yep, I think I should back you up there CIG. I think Hoonsou would admit he was angry when he first posted, but his OP was soon hijacked by people with other agendas. Hot on the heels of it came a thread with an extremely provocative title, which naturally attracted the same sort of comments, albeit about the class 57. The list of agitators IMO is quite a short one

but I'm pretty sure none of them are on this forum

(Andy Y has already summarised some/all of this, BTW, but I appreciate some readers may not want to go back-thread)

 

[Pennine MC]

There seems to be a spectrum of opinion on whether mention of RMweb threads is relevant here. I'd make the following points:

* In the opening post of this thread, RMweb was mentioned as a factor in Bachmann's decision. To me, the two issues are clearly intertwined.

* The offending passages on RMweb have been removed. Tho I'm no legal expert, I understand that action will absolve the site moderator of responsibility, so I dont expect the site to disappear

* I agree with Tractorbasher that the comments now posted on a private website are more vitriolic and potentially damaging than anything that appeared on RMweb

* Other threads were mentioned to put some context to Hoonsou's defence. He has already stood his corner and I don't wish to labour the point, but I must mention this post:
QUOTE ...So far nobody has really ripped into the real culprits, the originator/originators of the offending posts, so allow me. If you are a member of this forum, get the F*** out of here, we don't need you. If not allow me to give you some advice, DON'T JOIN, WE DON'T WANT YOU.

Someone earlier mentioned RMweb being a 'bunfight'. Well, that made me smile; I quite like a bit of grown-up rough'n'tumble, within reason. But my point is this: had a comment like that appeared on RMweb, I think a good number of other members would have taken exception to its tone, let alone those who were being 'outed'.

For my own part, I made my reasons for joining this forum clear in my first post, so I wont repeat them here. I've no intention of 'taking anything over by stealth' but I do like to see fairness. That said, I hope the negative aspects of RMweb can now be considered a part of the topic which has run it course.