A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:31:21 GMT

[quote user="SteveOwen"]

Martin, you just don't get it do you? Youneed to think before you criticise people. Who else "surreptitiously advertised a product"? The only other industry member who commented as far as I can see was Chris Geddes, who agreed with earlier comments that Sebolytic was the best of the Virbac range for greasy skin. He offered to send a guide to Virbac shampoos, said that people could contact "one of our technical vets", and included a signature declaring himself working for Virbac - hardly surreptitious - just helpful if you ask me.If it is he to which you refer, I think you owe him an apology.

[/quote]

OK I concede, in my haste to justify myself I saw what I wanted to see and ignored the rest. Apologies to Chris as well then. I am always a bit guilty of shooting first and asking questions later but I am happy to be criticised and proven wrong and even take a few insults and indulge in some self-deprecation. Maybe it is time for a bit of self censorship... nay moderation.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:41:31 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]what I was implying is that the internet gives those the opportunity to speak openly or feely to express their opinion who wouldn't be able to do so otherwise because of censureship and lack of political freedom. [/quote]

Agree.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]To a lesser extent it also gives an opportunity to those who may be less confident expressing themselves in other media.[/quote]

Yes, agree, but equally my whole point is that a forum which contains too many hostile posts prevents people who are less confident from posting. That is the crux of my argument, and why I am so hot on this at the moment.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]As soon as censureship is applied to internet forums we are taking a backward step in freedom of speech. Once again that doesn't give carte blanche for offensive behaviour but because someone is upset by criticism is not a reason to restrict content.[/quote]

Hang on a second, nobody is even thinking of censoring this forum. The word is 'moderating', and whilst it may sound like semantics, there is a clear difference. All I seek to do is moderate to ensure that discussions are polite, courteous, inclusive, respectful and all that kind of thing. To my mind, that's not curtailing free speech (though, strictly speaking, I guess I am preventing free speech if free speech means telling each other to eff off!). Actually, I believe (passionately, as it happens), that moderating for these kinds of things significantly enhances free speech, because it creates an environment where even the less confident can feel able to come and express an opinion without being flamed in too personal a way.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

SteveOwen — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:36:39 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

Now Arlo has added industry banner to others I have realised that Cathy wasn't the only one who surreptitiously advertised a product and so I apologise for singling her out but it doesn't alter the fact that whether they are just plain naive or cynically advertising their product they should declare their interest.

[/quote]

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:11:46 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]An internet forum is somewhere people can speak their minds more freely than they would in direct conversation[/quote]

Sorry, I disagree. To put it bluntly, if you wouldn't say it face-to-face you certainly shouldn't post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY&NR=1

[/quote]

I agree with you Evelyn, and I would not post anything I was not prepared to discuss face to face, what I was implying is that the internet gives those the opportunity to speak openly or feely to express their opinion who wouldn't be able to do so otherwise because of censorship and lack of political freedom. The value of that has been shown in recent events in the Middle East. To a lesser extent it also gives an opportunity to those who may be less confident expressing themselves in other media. As soon as censorship is applied to internet forums we are taking a backward step in freedom of speech. Once again that doesn't give carte blanche for offensive behaviour but because someone is upset by criticism is not a reason to restrict content.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:02:11 GMT

nope, cause that's more of a nightmare than discussing about how to post polite :-)

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:58:50 GMT

can we get back to greasy skin now?

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:58:47 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

I for one feel that if I am prevented from speaking my mind I would rather not contribute anymore and won't wait until I'm banned. Anyone who doesn't agree with what I say is free to give back as good as they get. I don't hold grudges and I'm happy to go for a drink with anyone, talk freely and still be friends even if we violently disagree - even with Arlo when he has banned me!

[/quote]

no problem with speaking your mind as long as it is not abusive or insulting. I'm not saying you did this, I don't think I've ever read any abusive post from you, but I have read many insulting posts on many lists and this usually leads to valuable contributors leaving the list, which is a pity. So it's just about being polite - criticism on the other hand is very helpful if you still want to learn, so I don't mind being criticised, but I do mind being insulted. Unfortunately what one person finds insulting the other would consider mere criticism, so bear in mind that your own preferences might not be everybody's cup of tea. I'm also happy to drink with nearly everyone ;-)

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:56:50 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]In the cool light of a new day I have thought about what has been said and I really still can't see that anyone said anything offensive. [/quote]

What, other than calling someone sneaky and unprofessional?

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Now Arlo has added industry banner to others I have realised that Cathy wasn't the only one who surreptitiously advertised a product and so I apologise for singling her out but it doesn't alter the fact that whether they are just plain naive or cynically advertising their product they should declare their interest. [/quote]

It's not necessarily naive to fail to declare an interest in a particular thread. In fact, Cathy had already declared it in an earlier thread, and probably would have assumed that (or the fact that her company has always been clearly stated in her profile), was enough. That's neither naive nor cynical. I think the truth is I have to shoulder the blame for this - for not having something in place to ensure automatic transparency earlier. I'm sorry. But I have added the industry banner which now displays automatically adjacent to any poster who has registered as a manufacturer or supplier. There are still some industry vets who I think may have registered in the 'vet' category, so if you see one without the badge, plugging their product, don't tear their head off!

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]There is a difference between someone being over-sensitive and them being offended for being unreasonably criticised. An internet forum is somewhere people can speak their minds more freely than they would in direct conversation or in the written word and any attempt to stop that, so long as the contents are not deliberately offensive or abusive, is a retrograde step. The whole philosophy of the Internet was to allow freedom of speech and expression which is not possible in other media. The very nature of these forums means that the majority of posts are by a small hardcore who are also those who have an opinion on everything and are not scared to express it. This may sometimes involve the criticism of those less confident who lurk on the periphery but if that core is censured or censored it will detract from the quality of the forum. I for one feel that if I am prevented from speaking my mind I would rather not contribute anymore and won't wait until I'm banned.[/quote]

Hmm, lots of points there. Firstly, I am not looking to censor anyone. I don't want to stifle debate. I also appreciate the absolute importance of the core users of this site. You are its lifeblood. BUT there are caveats. Whilst I think the Internet allows people to speak more freely, I also think that means people have a responsibility to be, I dunno, a little careful what they say. The pen IS mighter than the sword, and we will all read something a completely different way. If anything, there's a responsibility, I think, to exagerate kindness online, to make up for the starkness of the written word. To say things like: 'you may be right, but I think ...' instead of just 'you're bloody well wrong', for example!

But that's going to another sort of level. I don't want anyone sitting here frightened to post at all, for fear of causing offence. Just for regular members to remember that you are the voice of this community, to the very much larger number of readers (1.8 MILLION page views this year), and if you want the broadest range of opinion expressed, and the greatest sharing of knowledge, you'd better make sure it is a kind voice.

Martin, if I have to ban anyone, I will take it as something of a large personal failure on my part, for not having moderated (as opposed to censored!) well enough to prevent it. It is absolutely the last thing I want to do.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:18 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]An internet forum is somewhere people can speak their minds more freely than they would in direct conversation[/quote]

Sorry, I disagree. To put it bluntly, if you wouldn't say it face-to-face you certainly shouldn't post it.

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:27:42 GMT

In the cool light of a new day I have thought about what has been said and I really still can't see that anyone said anything offensive. Now Arlo has added industry banner to others I have realised that Cathy wasn't the only one who surreptitiously advertised a product and so I apologise for singling her out but it doesn't alter the fact that whether they are just plain naive or cynically advertising their product they should declare their interest. They may well produce efficacious products but we need to know that their recommendations are not independent reviews. We are not a bunch of 14 year old girls bullying one of our peers on Facebook, we are mature people who should be able to accept criticism as well as dish it out and not go crying to mummy because we feel offended. There is a difference between someone being over-sensitive and them being offended for being unreasonably criticised. An internet forum is somewhere people can speak their minds more freely than they would in direct conversation or in the written word and any attempt to stop that, so long as the contents are not deliberately offensive or abusive, is a retrograde step. The whole philosophy of the Internet was to allow freedom of speech and expression which is not possible in other media. The very nature of these forums means that the majority of posts are by a small hardcore who are also those who have an opinion on everything and are not scared to express it. This may sometimes involve the criticism of those less confident who lurk on the periphery but if that core is censured or censored it will detract from the quality of the forum. I for one feel that if I am prevented from speaking my mind I would rather not contribute anymore and won't wait until I'm banned. Anyone who doesn't agree with what I say is free to give back as good as they get. I don't hold grudges and I'm happy to go for a drink with anyone, talk freely and still be friends even if we violently disagree - even with Arlo when he has banned me!

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:48:17 GMT

Thank you Anne, Dagmar and Evelyn, all power to my elbow, so to speak

Evelyn, yes, the occasional duel is fine. I don't want to suck the life out of good healthy debate by insisting that everyone has to be so careful what they say that they end up saying nothing at all!

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]But permit the occasional duel![/quote]

The only thing I'd like to highlight is the need to remember that 90% of visitors to most forums do not participate, but they DO read. I want these lurkers to come out of the bushes and join in! The more people that do, the more viewpoints are expressed, the more interesting and valuable the discussions. The risk of having a duel with another member is that a lurker won't necessarily know that you 'know' the other member well enough to know that they won't take offence. To the lurker, therefore, your post may just make them think 'crikey, no fun, I'm outta here'.

So I come back to the original point, which is, as always, debate the issues and don't let it become personal. Have the odd duel, sure. Argue robustly. But regular posters need to be aware that they are the ambassadors for this community (especially, according to feedback, those with the mentor badge). If you want the community to thrive and to engage the widest audience, you need to demonstrate to the many readers of the site that at the end of it all, we're a nice bunch of people. And it is vitally important to remember this regardless of who you are replying to on the site (ie be as welcoming to RCVS and industry members, they are not just there as target practice).

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:17:05 GMT

I'm on your side. A good debate is always worth a go and criticism has to be allowed. But it all depends on how it is said. There is no need for unfriendly, bickering or offensive posts.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Anne Seawright — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:24:37 GMT

I agree with you!

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:50:51 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing the right thing, trying to stamp out unfriendly posts,[/quote]

Yes you are.

But permit the occasional duel!

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:30:42 GMT

Evelyn, your questions were absolutely fair and reasonable, and I absolutely agree with everything you say. The only thing Is that you asked them in a different thread to this one, and so you should have posted your comment that Cathy had not answered them in the same thread as they were originally posted. By posting that comment in this thread, where it had no context, it did look like a bit of a dig! But that wasn't really a big deal, this was more about the post that said she was being sneaky etc. I.e. deliberately trying to plug something without being transparent about her interest. Kate, thank you! Sometimes I wonder whether I'm doing the right thing, trying to stamp out unfriendly posts, so I need members who agree with me to stand up and be counted, and I'm grateful to you for doing that.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Kate Richardson — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:31:51 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

The bigger picture is that I sense that as the community on this site has developed, and we have all become more familiar with each other, so I sense a greater intolerance to newcomers. I think that is VERY unhealthy. If it continues, the natural conclusion is that these forums will become a small group of opinionated people who don't allow anyone else a voice. That would be a bloody disaster.

In this case, xxxxxx, you could just have seen that Cathy is new to the site by the low post count by her name, clicked her profile, seen she works for Vetruus, and pointed out nicely that she should have added a signature to her original post. That would have been the kind thing to do. But no, you jumped down her throat.

I am getting thoroughly fed up with the intolerance in general. There were two very nice people I've spoken to in recent weeks who have been thoroughly upset, or scared off by the treatment they've had here. That's just, well, crap. I'm not going to tolerate any more of it.

[/quote]

Arlo you can read my mind. I have been meaning to post a thread on exactly this, but couldn't quite put the words together, but you have put it perfectly. I joined this forum to offer my help and experience to people and to gain the same from them. Why can't everyone just be nice to each other? No-one should mind constructive criticism, but some of the comments made on here are downright inflammatory and invite a defensive or even worse, no response. People will stop asking for help if it carries on this way, and that means that we stop learning from each other, which would be a shame.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:30:13 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]She's gone away now without answering the questions, anyway. [/quote]

But Evelyn, there weren't any questions for her to answer.

[/quote]

I asked – in the trisEDTA thread – whether they made a therapeutic claim for the product. The question was not answered.

I am truly sorry if that gave offence. Perhaps I overdid it, but the lady herself said she had been in the business thirty years, so she should be used to being grilled. Certainly she should not have suggested that Steve Owen was being rude or disparaging when he queried what she was saying.

It wasn't intolerance of newcomers. Catherine's first post I thought was very reasonable: just pointing out that her product was an alternative to that of Virbac, who had already had a pretty fair crack of the whip.

I hope I would never be deliberately rude to anyone who had not been rude first; or to one or two participants on this forum whom we know well and who clearly come out well armoured and spoiling for a fight. When they joust, others may sit back and enjoy the fun.

However: if a sales person wishes to take part in a forum, they should be prepared to enter into discussion, which is what we do on a forum. Straight sales talk is fine but it belongs on the trade stand.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Catherine Gurney — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:41:45 GMT

Hello Helen. Thanks very much and will send you a message shortly. Am just getting to grips with all the tech-y bits of vetsurgeon.org so Arlo has helped me out with everything I need to do to stay legit ! Am also getting my head around Twitter and Facebook at the moment for the new company as my PR lady and our website guy tell me that we need to be on all the social networking stuff ! Trouble is they all work differently and making sure you do everything correctly on each site can be a nightmare ! Arlo, can I ask here if anyone is a whizz at Twitter or Facebook to get in touch ?? Or do I need to start a new post out of Clinical?? ( Don't want to ask this question on Twitter or Facebook, otherwise the world, his wife and their four kids will get in touch !!! :-D )

I think the banner idea is a good one too, then we can all see who is who straight away and no-one can get into trouble, and as you say, the more people who get wishy washy friendly in my view the better !

Thanks Helen.

Regards,

Cathy

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Helen Wallace — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:19:10 GMT

Well, in the spirit of wishy-washy liberal friendship ;) Welcome to Vetsurgeon.org Cathy!

Cathy, if you want to send me a message I'll pass on my email. I'd like to hear about Vetruus products. I confess I've not heard of your company before but the more information I have the better the choices I can offer to my clients.

Personally, I think the more folk we have on here representing differnet viewpoints the more we all get out of this site. I have no problems with reps or industry vets but I have noticed some being accused of sneakiness lately. The banner idea seems like a good way around this whether its intentional or accidental.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:59:31 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]No-one needs a badge Arlo,[/quote]

No Martin, you are quite wrong. I've spoke with Cathy. She was not trying to be sneaky at all. She is just new to this forum (any forum) and hadn't realised the etiquette. I know you will find that hard to believe, but I have rarely been so certain of anything!

If there had been an automatic badge adjacent to her name, stating industry, then this would not have happened in the first place.

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I'm surprised you're not a bit more miffed at someone surreptitiously (correct use of word this time!) placing an advert. I would be if I was one of your advertisers who pays for the space![/quote]

Look at the top of the page. Cathy and her company have been advertising, and (thereby supporting this site) for three months now. But actually, that's besides the point. I assess a commercial post on one main criteria - is it interesting? Cathy has a new company, with new products. I call that interesting and would have allowed it regardless of whether or not her company was advertising.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]She's gone away now without answering the questions, anyway. [/quote]

But Evelyn, there weren't any questions for her to answer.

In this case, Martin, you could just have seen that Cathy is new to the site by the low post count by her name, clicked her profile, seen she works for Vetruus, and pointed out nicely that she should have added a signature to her original post. That would have been the kind thing to do. But no, you jumped down her throat.

Not singling you out Martin, but I am getting thoroughly fed up with the intolerance in general. There were two very nice people I've spoken to in recent weeks who have been thoroughly upset, or scared off by the treatment they've had here. That's just, well, crap. I'm not going to tolerate any more of it.

So think carefully if you (by which I mean anyone), want to post something waspish to a newcomer. It will probably be your last.

Meantime, if anyone wants to post something a bit more welcoming to Cathy, or is interested in her new company or products, now is your moment.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:00:08 GMT

No-one needs a badge Arlo, they just need to be up front and say 'have you tried this new product my company makes'?, so we know what they're about. I'm surprised you're not a bit more miffed at someone surreptitiously (correct use of word this time!) placing an advert. I would be if I was one of your advertisers who pays for the space!

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:39:21 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You're being a soft, wet liberal again Arlo. [/quote]

Laughed out loud. You're right. Hang her.

Seriously ... Cathy did register with her company name in her profile from the outset, and really, I think it is quite understandable that someone new to the site hasn't looked in their profile and realised that a) you can add a signature, and b) it's a good idea.

Tell you what, though, I have just had a good idea. I'm going to go and design a badge that will appear adjacent to all industry member's posts in the forums, which will hopefully eliminate the problem completely. Back in five.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:35:00 GMT

She's gone away now without answering the questions, anyway. It seemed that she took any questioning of her sales talk as rudeness.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:28:36 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Really don't believe this to have been intentional. Cathy is a newbie, and although if you click her name you can see she is completely open about where she works, I very much doubt she would have known it is a good idea for commercial members to add a signature which appears at the foot of all their posts, which makes commercial interests that little bit more obvious / transparent.

[/quote]

Maybe but I very much think it would be polite and common sense. If she hadn't subsequently surreptitiously revealed her identity I would have thought she was just a normal member reporting success with a product they'd tried, not a bit of free advertising. You're being a soft, wet liberal again Arlo.

Re: A good shampoo for greasy skin?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:19:58 GMT

[quote user="newgradvet"]Just as a bystander reading about shampoos about greasy skin, I didn't see any rude comments by anyone!?

[/quote]

Likewise, didn't see anything rude in this thread!

[quote user="SteveOwen"]Roc de lussac on offer in Sainsburys, I have stocked up :-D[/quote]

Me too!

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Nor did I, but what I did see, without realising it at first, was 'someone' placing their own product without declaring their interest. Now that may not be rude but unprofessional or sneaky - yes![/quote]

Really don't believe this to have been intentional. Cathy is a newbie, and although if you click her name you can see she is completely open about where she works, I very much doubt she would have known it is a good idea for commercial members to add a signature which appears at the foot of all their posts, which makes commercial interests that little bit more obvious / transparent.