The "other" m/home site

[euroanchor]

Well, it would appear that after having a go at our very own Frank W. Some of the paying members on M*F, have decided to include the rest of us in their "having a pop " thread, and I quote

 

"Strange lot on the 'other' site. looked at it, Im sure its OK if you like that sort of thing but didnt feel I should stay too long through. left afew thoughts for them all. For whats its worth this site is worth every penny, (and thats not an invite to put the subs up !)

 

Came back here, much more freindly and informative..... "

 

And honourable member DABurleigh says " he doesn't like the in-gutter rivalry that appears on here"

 

Now correct me if my thinking is wrong (dont all jump on the bandwaggon) , but what is the point of the above comments ? they give the impression that some of those members who pay to post on M*F believe they are superior to the members on here who dont.

 

It just proves a point I made many months ago, that far too many motorhomers think they are a cut above the rest, which gives the community as a whole, a negative profile. One post over there,(cant remember who from) stated that if they were to purchase a self build camper that somebody was selling, they would never live it down. How snobbish is that ?

 

Anyway, my point is this, despite the (usually) good natured banter about a couple of people, this site has a much more relaxed and laid back feeling to it, If you want to pay £10 a year to post on that forum, then do so. But please dont get all righteous when you do.

 

 

[howie]

Hi Euro. Each to their own as they say, and for anyone with a perceived sense of superior social standing, its only natural that they find a website with those sharing the same opinions and outlook on life.

For myself, I find "Out and About" strikes the right balance, with just about every subject you can think of being aired and discussed.

The real plus with this forum is that its divided into the two main m/h sections which allows you to address any serious questions or replies on the one, and I think it was as Enodreven said, use the other as a chat room, where everyone with a shared interest in the outdoor life can enjoy themselves. Howard.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

I wandered into this site not realising that one had a limited number of posts (10) before having to pay a subscription. I had a great old argument about Britain's nuclear deterrent with a couple of blokes who seemed slightly to the left of Arthur Scargill. Me being slightly to the right of Norman Tebbit made for interesting comment! I made it quite clear that I thought they (just some of them of course) were a bunch of pinko commie liberals and that I'd never paid to use a forum in my life and wasn't starting now. I must also add that, as usual, I didn't start the row but waded in after some nutter insisted that JFK was actually insane!

I've never been back, have no intention of doing so and couldn't care less what anyone is saying!

I've one or two hobbies including collecting fine mechanical watches and using Palm PDAs and subscribe regularly to forums and have never ever come across one that demands a subscription.

I suppose that some people have such large egos that they are happy to shell out some dosh purely to have their opinions in print, but I'm not one of them.

Anyway, I like this site. I like the fact that with most people, you can have a disagreement but they'll come right back and help you. I'm new to motorhoming and have learned an awful lot from some people, to whom I'm most grateful.

Finally, my New Year's resolution is to totally ignore TC101 and hope that others will eventually recognise him for what he really is.

[olley]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-14 11:02 AM

but waded in after some nutter insisted that JFK was actually insane!I suppose that some people have such large egos that they are happy to shell out some dosh purely to have their opinions in print, but I'm not one of them.

Anyway, I like this site. I like the fact that with most people, you can have a disagreement but they'll come right back and help you. I'm new to motorhoming and have learned an awful lot from some people, to whom I'm most grateful.Finally, my New Year's resolution is to totally ignore TC101 and hope that others will eventually recognise him for what he really is.

Hi Frank was JFK insane good question, I don't know the answer and I suspect you don't know either. No doubt we could both find info on the net to prove both points of View. (actually I don't really care one way or the other)As for ego I guess as I also pay £32 to belong to ARVE (RV club) I must have a very big one. But we are never what we perceive ourselves to be are we Frank :-D I totally agree I have learnt a lot from all of the sites I go on, and am very grateful for all the help I have received no matter the source.And as for ignoring TC101 how can you? he is one really funny guy.Merry xmasOlley

[Guest TC01]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-14 11:02 AM

I like the fact that with most people, you can have a disagreement but they'll come right back and help you. I'm new to motorhoming and have learned an awful lot from some people, to whom I'm most grateful.

.

No need for gratitude Frank

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

No Comment.

[colin]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-14 4:07 PM

 

No Comment.

 

Its not new year yet so guess you are allowed that post.

 

 

As to original post, well we are all different and everybody has different views, thats what make life interesting. Myself I've been told that I am augumentative because sometimes I back 'left' wing views other times I back 'right' wing, but I say 'no' I have my own views on things.

[Brian Kirby]

Good Man, Colin!  Off topic I know, but the lefties and righties do worry me!  They do reduce everything is to doctrine, to our gang does this, or doesn't approve of that. 

I like a good crossbencher, far more flexible in their approach.  Mind, the other lot do have their uses - if only in pointing out the shortcomings in each others ideas, so we crossbenchers can see where the real sense lies!

[Guest 656]

I post on both sites. Why? Because I can. Do I slag off either sites? No Why? Because there is no mileage in it. Why do I get the feeling certain people on here "get off" on the slagging of the other site. So, to post - after 10 initial posts - you need to subscribe, so what it's only £10 and you save more than that with subscribers discounts. The WWW is big enough for both camps so, lets all be friends and stop this silly oneupmanship.

 

Just my 2d worth

 

Dave

 

656

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Brian Kirby - 2006-12-14 8:25 PM

Good Man, Colin!  Off topic I know, but the lefties and righties do worry me!  They do reduce everything is to doctrine, to our gang does this, or doesn't approve of that. 

I like a good crossbencher, far more flexible in their approach.  Mind, the other lot do have their uses - if only in pointing out the shortcomings in each others ideas, so we crossbenchers can see where the real sense lies!

A bit disparaging Brian in that everyone has views across the spectrum. In some topics I'd be considered right of centre (crime and punishment for instance), in others I'm very liberal (censorship, sexuality etc). I would argue that most people can define their general political stance but everyone will vary it considerably on some subjects.

I'm a Telegraph-reading businessman and I would feel unhappy with the Guardian and its viewpoint. Many others who consider themselves cross benchers would be most unhappy with the Telegraph's view.

I'm not sure that there can ever be a real cross bencher. Most people have firm opinions on various subjects such as capital punishment, socialism, state interference or state support, however you choose to define it.

I have no intention of debating any of these subjects on this site as they are irrelevent but I would argue that knowing where I stand is not wrong, as is implied in your comments.

[Forester]

I have "used up" my free 10 on the other site then I would have to pay. Why, I get all my Qs answered on here and have a laugh doing it I chose this site for the info I got and get what i need to know fast so to ALL the chatter box users 10/10 keep the good work up you have my vote.

Wayne  

[euroanchor]

Forester, you either stay up really late or have to get up really early

 

 

Unless............................................................

 

 

 

you've got a weak bladder and feel like posting when you get up for a pee.

 

My old dad used to say "the only people up at that time of the morning are milkmen and burglers" :D

[Mel B]

euroanchor - 2006-12-15 10:15 AM

 

My old dad used to say "the only people up at that time of the morning are milkmen and burglers" :D

 

And Tesco employees!!! Poor devils!

[michele]

I thought it was only me that got in trouble for posting so late 1 am

 

You been out lmuwo or just chopping wood wayne ?

[Forester]

Stealing is outlawed in this town, the councellers have past a very strict law on it. They done like the competition  ilmuoya

[Forester]

michele - 2006-12-15 11:58 PM I thought it was only me that got in trouble for posting so late 1 am You been out lmuwo or just chopping wood wayne ?

Been out with my chopper michele. he he 

[Mel E]

Was JFK insane?

 

Surely what matters much more is: 'Is George W insane'?

 

He can change our lives - JFK can't.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-14 11:37 PM

A bit disparaging Brian in that everyone has views across the spectrum. In some topics I'd be considered right of centre (crime and punishment for instance), in others I'm very liberal (censorship, sexuality etc). I would argue that most people can define their general political stance but everyone will vary it considerably on some subjects.

I'm a Telegraph-reading businessman and I would feel unhappy with the Guardian and its viewpoint. Many others who consider themselves cross benchers would be most unhappy with the Telegraph's view.

I'm not sure that there can ever be a real cross bencher. Most people have firm opinions on various subjects such as capital punishment, socialism, state interference or state support, however you choose to define it.

I have no intention of debating any of these subjects on this site as they are irrelevent but I would argue that knowing where I stand is not wrong, as is implied in your comments.

But Frank

I thought that was exectly what I was saying.  It's the fully paid up adherents to one or other doctrine that worry me, and anyow, I read the Independent in search of sanity, not the Daily Gruff or the Grauniad.  If it weren't so bl**dy expensive I'd read the FT.  Now that is a good read.

[colin]

Torygraph was a bit thin this saterday, two sheets for 'money matters'! Gone downhill since the 'Brecqhou Brotherhood' took over, I remember the good old days when Tony Benn praised it for being the only paper to impartialy report on the byelection he was contesting ;-)

[saruman]

*-) *-) *-)

[mom]

Brian Kirby - 2006-12-17 7:11 PM  If it weren't so bl**dy expensive I'd read the FT.  Now that is a good read.

I am not a businessman so my needs are different, but in my opinion the only paper that's worth reading in this country is the Metro. 

If you want an "relatively" uncensored and "relatively" unbiased view of British news and politics, try reading respected national papers from other countries on the internet.  It can be a quite refreshing exercise!  You get to know things about your own country that you're not allowed to know here.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

mom - 2006-12-18 8:19 AM

Brian Kirby - 2006-12-17 7:11 PM  If it weren't so bl**dy expensive I'd read the FT.  Now that is a good read.

I am not a businessman so my needs are different, but in my opinion the only paper that's worth reading in this country is the Metro. 

If you want an "relatively" uncensored and "relatively" unbiased view of British news and politics, try reading respected national papers from other countries on the internet.  It can be a quite refreshing exercise!  You get to know things about your own country that you're not allowed to know here.

To be honest I can't say that I've noticed the Metro's in-depth and incisive political analysis and its immense grasp and coverage of U.K. and international affairs.

I'm just curious though about this censorship that we have in our own papers. Just to make this clear to me - you read an article in a 'respected'  foreign newspaper, which tells you things about this country you didn't know. So far so good. Having discovered this thing that you didn't know about our country, did you read every British newspaper to make sure that it hasn't been published anywhere, or did you just assume that it has been deliberately censored?

I'd love to see some examples of this censorship and once you've provided them I can assure you that I for one will be writing to my own newspaper, or to the government, (whichever is ultimately responsible) to ask why we are being treated in this way.

Now assuming that it's been deliberately censored, whom do you think is reponsible? As I ask above, is it our government or is it the editors of our newspapers?

I don't want to argue with anyone about this but I believe that apart from sensitive material, which is not allowed into the public domain for reasons of national security, we have a fairly open society. British newspapers for example are usually the ones ferreting out the stories, not trying to hide them.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, Frank, yes and no.  Curates egg, really, isn't it? 

If one wanted to be really well informed one should, of course, ideally read several papers.  However, life is just too short. 

Over a long time spent train commuting, I have tried most of the broadsheets.  Pre Murdoch, I had a spell with the Times.  That degenerated under him, nay - it was wrecked!  It used to be respected as a "Document of Record", so impartial and accurate was it.  No longer!  Just pages of extensive and largely biased journalistic opinion. 

Tried the Telegraph, but found the subliminal censorship uncomfortable.  I don't know if it has changed with a non Conservative government, but its greatest sins were always ones of omission.  You'd read little of Pinochet's outrages for example, but many plaudits for his support.  To me, it just lacked balance, and was just too overtly a Torygraph. 

Tried the Guardian, but realised that for much of the week the supplements were abandoned unread.  I didn't really want a "Media Edition" and a "Teacher's Edition" or whatever.  They all get paid to do a job, the media types somewhat overpaid, and the teachers mostly seemed out of step with what I, as a parent of school age children, wanted from them.  Why should it be presumed that I wanted to read about their navel fluff each week? 

Then had a go at the FT and was very impressed, until they jacked the price up!  Also, the "pinkun" is a bit pretentious for my tastes.  Despite it being a very good newspaper, with excellent succinct analysis and reporting, and finding I could read it all the way up and all the way back home again, it is a bit of a "one up" status symbol.

Then some saintly soul introduced the Independent, which to me is rather akin to the old Times, though it doesn't quite have the authority.  Least worst, somehow.

As to investigative journalism: once upon a time maybe, but it is a dying service, more's the pity.  Few journalists now are allowed to stick their noses into the really grubby corners and poke around.  Too much proprietorial interest, too much advertising revenue at stake, too much threatening to ostracise the lobby correspendents if the paper digs dirt on government policy.

What I really, really, want is for just one journalist to tell me what, in the name of all that is wonderful, ever persuaded us to join the Americans in Iraq!  Not the theories, not the spin, but the clear unadulterated truth, which I strongly suspect is far murkier, and more unpalatable, than most of us want to believe.  Now that really would be a first - though almost certainly not for discussion here, I suspect!

[mom]

Frank Wilkinson - 2006-12-18 10:39 AM

To be honest I can't say that I've noticed the Metro's in-depth and incisive political analysis and its immense grasp and coverage of U.K. and international affairs.

I'm just curious though about this censorship that we have in our own papers. Just to make this clear to me - you read an article in a 'respected'  foreign newspaper, which tells you things about this country you didn't know. So far so good. Having discovered this thing that you didn't know about our country, did you read every British newspaper to make sure that it hasn't been published anywhere, or did you just assume that it has been deliberately censored?

Well Frank, on the issue of the Metro, you made my point exactly.  You won't find an in depth and incisive political analysis.  Wonderful, isn't it?  A 15 minute read and I have covered the headlines for the day.  No biased opinions, no bloated, overpaid, cynical, pseudo-intellectual analyses, just the headlines.  For me, and perhaps just me, I find this delightfully refreshing.  Having said that, I was obviously too subtle in my comment as it was ever so slightly tongue in cheek.  Appologies.

As to my comments on bias and censorship, no, I don't carry a list around in my pocket as I personally don't care.  If you ignore the rubbish, it can't affect you.  But I have on several occasions thought "that certainly wasn't mentioned here in the UK press, that I noticed".  Sure, I don't read all the papers here.  And yeah, I could have missed it.  But have some fun and have a go yourself.  The first thing you'll notice about many articles about UK politics is the lack of spin.  Spin is one of the worst kinds of censorship.  It not only tries to hide the facts, it does it by replacing them with ideas and concepts in an attempt to deceive.  International press often don't have the luxury of goverment contacts and have to build a story from observation;  it sometimes adds clarity to the muddy pools deliberately created domestically.  Another thing you'll notice about happenings in the UK is that the Royal family gets up to a little more than we know!  And that some domestically sensitive news items are release days earlier internationally.

So, no, I'm not going to make a list for you, because I'm not interested, but if you are, take a look yourself.

Oh, and one last thing, exactly the same is true in reverse.  This is not a UK thing, all I'm saying is that sometimes you need to step back and look at other accounts of events to get the full picture. 

Don't believe me?  I actually don't mind ;-)

[Brian Kirby]

Michael

I'm interested in which foreign papers one can access, and whether they have English language editions on the net.  Or is one confined just to the English speaking world?  If you find the time, a few suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks.