Forum Integrity

Re: Forum Integrity

John Rimmer — Wed, 02 May 2012 19:02:17 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="John Rimmer"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

(the nudist beach is about 3 miles to the left of this photo, outside binocular range).[/quote]

Sounds like a man talking from experience. [/quote]

My very limited experience of nudist beaches is that they are entirely populated by the very last people in the world who should be removing their clothes in public. I would put myself in that category, and have no wish to look at others in the same boat as me!

[/quote]

I agree on both counts (me, not you, I've not seen you, naked or clothed).

Re: Forum Integrity

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:48:14 GMT

[quote user="John Rimmer"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

(the nudist beach is about 3 miles to the left of this photo, outside binocular range).[/quote]

Sounds like a man talking from experience. [/quote]

Re: Forum Integrity

John Rimmer — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:26:55 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

(the nudist beach is about 3 miles to the left of this photo, outside binocular range).

[/quote]

Sounds like a man talking from experience.

Re: Forum Integrity

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 02 May 2012 18:11:40 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

[/quot]

I didn't take you for a naturist! Where do you put you iphone when it is not in use?[/quote]

In my defence, I would like to enter the following photograph taken from our spot on the beach yesterday afternoon. As you can see, what few people there were on the beach were fully clothed! (the nudist beach is about 3 miles to the left of this photo, outside binocular range).

Back to more serious matters. I'd like to address JGW's points in more detail:

[quote user="J G Wray"]The self-delusion, the self-deceit, that vetsurgeon.org was ever a secure forum is over.[/quote]

JGW, I am genuinely nonplussed by this remark. Surely it is absolutely self-evident that a forum with 8000 members, none of whom have signed the Official Secrets Act, is obviously 'insecure' in the sense that you wouldn't post your innermost secrets on here. Personally, I also moderate my online behaviour/language in such a way that I hope it reflects well on me, both on a personal level and professionally. Isn't this just plain common sense? Do we not all moderate our behaviour offline in exactly the same way? How is this any different?

[quote user="J G Wray"]So, old fruit,what do you make of this

[quote user="Alet Engelbrecht"]The differences are clear & simple: this is a CLOSED forum discussion - between peers/colleagues who (should) care about the profession's wellbeing and public image, [/quote]

or this

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]This is a veterinary forum. It is for discussion, sometimes heated, between veterinary professionals.[/quote]

There may be others who are not as crystal as you about security.[/quote]

I disagree! You talk about security in black and white terms, JGW, when the reality is that there are degrees of security.

This is a closed community open to anyone in the profession and its suppliers, however I make it clear (and always have done) in the forum rules that whilst registration is designed to deter those not entitled to join the site, it is simply not possible for me to hand check each and every application, and it is possible that posts may be read by people outside the profession.

That seems to me to be a pragmatic level of security, commensurate with the secrecy of the topics under discussion (you are not nuclear physicists discussing state secrets). What it means in a practical sense is that whilst what you say is screened from outsiders, it is not impossible that someone might slip through the net. To all intents and purposes, therefore, it is a closed community, and Alet and Simon are correct.

I think that you understand the need for discretion online JGW, but you think everyone else doesn't (and you see it as your job to educate them).

I think you are wrong in this. I think people intuitively know not to post something which reflects badly on them, or self-incriminates. On the very, very few occasions where I think someone is not showing themself in a good light, I try and warn them! I usually find that in such circumstances, they were aware they were coming across as pretty obnoxious, but simply didn't care!

Re: Forum Integrity

Mark Rowland — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:12:32 GMT

Is there a difference between members of the college profcon reading something on a forum and it being reported to them? I don't know it's a genuine question. May be they can only act if someone passes on forum material to them?

Re: Forum Integrity

plantagenet — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:12:10 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]stark naked and huddled up against a fire[/quote]

That sounds painful to me!

Re: Forum Integrity

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:58:31 GMT

JGW, we all know that lots of people from the RCVS are members, and have been for years, and frequently post in the forums. So there is nothing new in what you're saying. These people have been reading posts on here for years. Again, I say to you: so what?

Re: Forum Integrity

J G Wray — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:41:41 GMT

So, old fruit,what do you make of this

or this

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]This is a veterinary forum. It is for discussion, sometimes heated, between veterinary professionals.[/quote]

There may be others who are not as crystal as you about security.

You also posted something curious

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I think it is absolutely right that the copy on your [Animal Trust] site be reviewed by an independent organisation such as the RCVS, as it does appear to denigrate the rest of the profession.[/quote]

So how do you feel about derogatory comments about the veterinary professionals at Animal Trust posted here, on your website, being reviewed by, say, RCVS? You know it's happened and you know who has done it, so what're you gonna do about it?

Doing nothing sanctions a free for all. Just how many watchers and low level contributors and "Anons" is that going to scare off?

JGW

Re: Forum Integrity

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:39:43 GMT

My wife took a walk on a naturist beach once some years ago (forget which one) in the middle of winter - figuring there wouldn't be any naturists on the beach. To her surprise there WAS one hardy soul, stark naked and huddled up against a fire. That's dedication!

Re: Forum Integrity

Tim Browning — Tue, 01 May 2012 16:32:56 GMT

Its also famous for its heathland wildlife, when walking there recently I thought I would poke around the sandy hollows for smooth snakes , I wish I hadn't, I didn't find the type I was looking for...

Re: Forum Integrity

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:45:53 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] (posting this from my iPhone on the beach in Studland Bay.

[/quote]

Did you bring a birthday suit or binoculars? :p

Re: Forum Integrity

Bob Russell — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:34:08 GMT

For those who don't live in this neck of the woods Studland Bay is infamous for its naturist beach!

Re: Forum Integrity

Bob Russell — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:31:53 GMT

[/quot]

I didn't take you for a naturist! Where do you put you iphone when it is not in use?

Re: Forum Integrity

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:10:43 GMT

Dear oh dear, and there was I thinking I could sneak in a rare day off (posting this from my iPhone on the beach in Studland Bay. Anyway, JGW, in the past, I've made the mIstake of taking affront at your harping on about this forum being insecure, as though that was some sort of failing. Now I realise that the ONLY person that doesn't understand that ALL forums with more than 3 members are inherently insecure is YOU. So what? As others have said till blue in the face, post accordingly.

Re: Forum Integrity

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:22:55 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]Good advice Lorna. However another good set of advice for internet forums in general is "Don't feed the troll." If you ignore him he will go away.[/quote]

Sadly it appears that they don't all get the message it depends which billy goat he's after.

Re: Forum Integrity

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:41:22 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

What on earth are you on about? "Self-delusion"... "self-deceit"? It is clear as clear when you register that this is not a closed forum; and even if it weren't that clear, I do not think my esteemed colleagues - or others on this forum - naive enough to believe that an internet forum can ever be "secure".

The trick, JGW, is very simply not to write stuff you wouldn't put on a postcard or say out loud in a pub. I see no evidence that anyone here has. And although I'd not choose myself to put some of the more unpleasant, rude, and aggressive messages that appear on here in a public forum - hey, we're all different.

[/quote]

Good advice Lorna. However another good set of advice for internet forums in general is "Don't feed the troll." If you ignore him he will go away.

Re: Forum Integrity

J G Wray — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:39:31 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]I see no evidence that anyone here has. And although I'd not choose myself to put some of the more unpleasant, rude, and aggressive messages that appear on here in a public forum - hey, we're all different.[/quote]

This is a new tune, what's it called?

JGW

Re: Forum Integrity

Lorna McHardy — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:30:02 GMT

Re: Forum Integrity

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:23:20 GMT

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

"Charlie don't surf."

Great movie albeit seriously strange.

Re: Forum Integrity

Mark Rowland — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:12:22 GMT

Its ironic, i was watching "Apocalypse Now" last night.

That haunting melody by the Doors rings around my head.....

Re: Forum Integrity

Dagmar Steele — Tue, 01 May 2012 08:59:36 GMT

Every Internet forum leaks. Just don't write what you wouldn't say in public. And by the way, everyone got your point on the other thread, repeating it and beating it ten thousand times will not make people agree more with you.