Time's running out - what would you ask?

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Silvia Maldonado — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 02:08:07 GMT

QUESTION: How many of the candidates are visiting vets forums regularly?

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Anna Battek-Kosiorowska — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:48:57 GMT

So I spent (wasted? - I hope all that Regulars will treat me accordingly to rule 1) 20 minutes of my life to read that thread and I am not wiser at all. The only two candidates willing to contribute here disappeared due to technical and rhetorical "glitches". I read my precious ballot paper, checked on the other side of it for a missing candidate , I read it again and again. Maybe I should have my English language skills tested (by RCVS?) but although I do understand every word apart I can't see much sense in all that manifestos. Work and life balance, stop disillusionment, profession integrity, alternative career paths and so on. Only raw meaty bones stand out.

Did somebody mention raw meaty bones?

I still can't make up my mind should I vote or not at all. It does and doesn't matter in the same time as it was mathematically proved. Voting is making and not making a difference. Voting and getting through makes successful candidates disappear in that overcrowded full of paperwork premises of RCVS [sad violin tune in the background]

Dear forum members you gave me a migraine...

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

J G Wray — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:53:53 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]There seems a very large whiff of hypocriticality about a post that begins by criticising sermonising before doing precisely that.[/quote]

I think it is saved by being a response.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I judge the behaviour of some people as being rude and sniping at times. But I'm certainly no moral rector.[/quote]

It's a fine line sometimes

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I also disagree (vehemently) that a dislike of 'rudeness' is intolerant of a contrary point of view or searching examination of accountability. [/quote]

I'm making a point about how accusation of rudeness and I would go so far as to include more extreme accusations, like bullying, are easy to make and very difficult to refute. Institutions may not even give someone accused of these behaviours an opportunity to explain themselves or even let them know who made the allegation, particularly if circumstances are awkward. They lose objectivity and make an emotional and self serving judgement and response.

Fortunately, it's not how things work in the real world and leaves those institutions with the awkward point that led to the self-serving accusation still made and there to bite them at some point.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 07:34:21 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]If someone is scared of on-line criticism of their views, how can they possibly be relied upon to defend a principle which they believe to be right, when they are actually in the same room as those who hold differing views?[/quote]

Hannah Wynne Richards Iain has already addressed this point. I just want to say he's absolutely right. Arguing with someone with the written word alone, in the knowledge that your words are going to be forensically dissected ad infinitum, requires a completely different set of skills to arguing a point face to face.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Having viewed, contributed to and moderated several on line discussion groups, one aspect always pops up. Those who are the rudest and snipe the most are those who never contribute anything other than sniping and being rude.[/quote]

This type of sermonising is pitiful. The judgement of the behaviours of some as being rude and sniping invariably comes from a sense of moral rectitude adopted by someone who is also invariably anonymous in those forums. It is a bogus and self serving attitude and profoundly intolerant of a contrary point of view or a searching examination of their accountability/responsibility sometimes involving spending tens of thousands of pounds.[/quote]

J G Wray There seems a very large whiff of hypocriticality about a post that begins by criticising sermonising before doing precisely that.

I disagree with you, of course. I judge the behaviour of some people as being rude and sniping at times. But I'm certainly no moral rector.

I also disagree (vehemently) that a dislike of 'rudeness' is intolerant of a contrary point of view or searching examination of accountability.

On the contrary, I think those who are 'rude' are a far greater threat to a searching examination: it is far easier for someone who is being examined to dismiss a searching question which is framed in a hostile manner. And far more telling / insightful if they fail to answer a question asked politely.

[quote user="David Mills"]Oh come now, no great loss. It's been refreshing to not have election coverage, its a charade, promise to stay in touch, meaningless platitudes, politicospeak.[/quote]

Smiled. Well, is see your point.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]I cannot see that any of the posts are particularly rude or offensive[/quote]

Agree with that too.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Clive Ansell — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:57:10 GMT

What an absolute shambles.

Only 2 of the 8 candidates has made an appearance, and one of those has been banned/has a technical glitch/been censored (delete as feel fit)

I cannot see that any of the posts are particularly rude or offensive, even TL's which are just too ridiculous to take seriously (Exercising my right to free speech).

The other 6 are only conspicuous by their absence so far

1 of the candidates refuses to take part.

= farce

= I think I will take a leaf from Grumpy's book and abstain. Life is just too short

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Iain Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:37:37 GMT

"Characterising people as rude does not mean they are wrong, but it does provide a means of justifying censorship."

You're quite right Jonathan, I should have written "Those who write rude and sniping posts the most are those who never contribute anything other than behaving in a sinping and rude manner" My intent was to criticise behaviour, not people.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:51:48 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

This type of sermonising is pitiful..

Characterising people as rude does not mean they are wrong, but it does provide a means of justifying censorship.

[/quote]

but characterising them as naive is? Might as well be considered pitiful abandoning the other thread... ;-)

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

David Mills — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:27:45 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Coming back to an earlier point about being friendly and welcoming to newcomers, I have just been emailed by a candidate to say that having read the forum posts (I assume this one), they don't feel inclined to put their head on the chopping block.

If that's not an own goal, tell me what is?

[/quote]

Oh come now, no great loss. It's been refreshing to not have election coverage, its a charade, promise to stay in touch, meaningless platitudes, politicospeak.

The fact they don't want to come on here shows they're perfect for office - they can happily sign off the dross the RCVS empire builders put in front of them. It's not incumbent on the masses to tip toe around people less they take offence. You're asking for peoples votes, you have to prove you're worthy of them.

Who was it?

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:26:35 GMT

Characterising people as rude does not mean they are wrong, but it does provide a means of justifying censorship.

Fortunately, it's not how real life works but it does mean that some veterinary institutions in particular operate with few checks and balances and waste their members time and money.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Iain Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:32:40 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

If someone is scared of on-line criticism of their views, how can they possibly be relied upon to defend a principle which they believe to be right, when they are actually in the same room as those who hold differing views?

Wynne

[/quote]

On line is entirely different to in the same room. Easy to rattle off a poorly worded mail, easy to read offence into an innocently worded mail. Far to easy for the poster to be rude to someone they can't see.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Iain Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:28:10 GMT

I support your comments Arlo, it's tricky being a forum moderator.

Having viewed, contributed to and moderated several on line discussion groups, one aspect always pops up. Those who are the rudest and snipe the most are those who never contribute anything other than sniping and being rude. As you say, an own goal. The behaviour is such that it creates its own censorship.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:25:08 GMT

Wynne

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:16:12 GMT

I'm saddened by that, and it illustrates my point. Those of you who think people who stand for election are fair game, and should be robust enough to field hostile-sounding forum posts ... well ... you've got what you want: which is Thomas Lonsdale as the only candidate contributing to the discussion so far.

If that's not an own goal, tell me what is?

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:51:56 GMT

[quote]

He has freedom of speech, but doesn't mean he should be guaranteed this platform. I'd agree that if his effect on this forum is negative then Arlo is well within his editorial right to deny him this platform.

[/quote]

... to cross with the other thread, you're defining a boundary so freedom of speech is hardly absolute in those terms.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Anthony Dennison — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:49:11 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] *drops mic* [/quote]

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Rob Loxley — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:47:30 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

He has no intention of being constructive, open minded or discussing his beliefs in a grown up manner.

This is his annual, self-serving opportunity for self-publicity and other than a slight smile and a yawn of boredom, he will get little more response from proper vets working in the interest of their patients.

[/quote]

And therefore contributes little to this forum. He has freedom of speech, but doesn't mean he should be guaranteed this platform. I'd agree that if his effect on this forum is negative then Arlo is well within his editorial right to deny him this platform.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:44:30 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]As a non-vet Arlo seems to delight in and getting away with interfering in veterinary affairs that is not his place to interfere with.[/quote]

Hi Roger Meacock - First things first. I take 'delight' in all sorts of things in life. 'Interfering' ain't one of them.

You make it sound like I am constantly meddling in all sorts of veterinary matters, which is simply untrue. On matters clinical, I realise I am neither qualified nor entitled to have or express an opinion, and make it a rule to stay clear.

I can think of only two exceptions in my 16 years moderating. Epilepsy, where I have shared my experience with human treatments (and have sometimes felt that even that is perhaps straying a bit close to the boundary). And homeopathy / rational medicine, where it's really a much bigger debate about rational medicine in both the human and veterinary arena, and I think my experience in managing a severe chronic illness has given me a particular insight. And in this area, my activities are mainly in support of MRCVS members campaigning on this topic.

The extent of my 'interfering' elsewhere is restricted to matters which impact on this community. So if, for example, someone publishes libellous stuff on this site, or stuff which tarnishes its reputation, then I step in.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]As I posted on the Vet Times forum that was heavily doctored before being published[/quote] Presume you mean Vet Times letters, because Vet Times doesn't run a forum. Letters in the print media (or their online equivalent) have always been edited, since time immemorial. Vet Times' editorial policy doesn't have anything to do with me.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]if interference was occurring in media activities I doubt Arlo would be so pleased with himself if it were his views being censored.[/quote]

Roger, you will accept that not all media outlets publish every bit of nonsense that anyone cares to spout. I mean, if Mr Lonsdale failed to get an article published in the Daily Telegraph or Veterinary Times, would you accuse it of censorship? Surely not.

A community like this is slightly different, in that there is looser control over what is published. Nevertheless, it is not Mr Lonsdale's absolute right (morally or in any other sense) to be a member of this community, or to publish whatever he wants on VetSurgeon.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with rational discussions about RMB and its clinical merits, or indeed whether there are shortcomings in commercial diets of any sort.

However, when someone comes in here being throwing unproven accusations around like confetti, accusing other members of being stupid or corrupt, I think it brings this site into disrepute.

I have given him a huge amount of latitude over the years, in the face of numerous complaints. Enough's enough. He has made his point. If he were to email me with a firm undertaking to stick to the facts and stop hurling insults at everyone, then I'm sure I would move the investigation into the technical issue affecting his account up my list of priorities.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:39:39 GMT

Malcolm and Bob I agree with you - but to me it's a case of "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." Any other response is to bow to the sort of censorship that was practised in communist Russia.

I'll even defend the right of socialists to free speech. I hate socialism, but, if socialists were banned from promoting their views, then I'd argue that they should be allowed the right to speak - even though I would still remain convinced that they were barking mad.

Wynne

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Bob Russell — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:27:22 GMT

Tom's posts are boringly repetitive. We know his views and tend to be unsympathetic because he holds himself up as the only one fighting the system. I assume this is how he makes a living.

Everyone here will accept that many foods are of such low value as to be suitable for 'survival' only. Our local Poundstretcher has a 15Kg bag of dog food for £7.99!

Tom plays on a paranoia that clearly is contrived rather than believed.

There is a perfectly valid discussion to be had on the dodgy quality of many pet foods but Tom removes himself from it by constantly quoting his standard b+llsh+t!

He has no intention of being constructive, open minded or discussing his beliefs in a grown up manner.

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:10:52 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Tom's exclusion from this discussion [/quote]

Having become rather bored reading Tom Lonsdale's writings (while trying to give his views a "fair crack of the whip") it became apparent to me that in Tom's world, there are but two opinions. Tom's opinion and the wrong opinion. That doesn't leave much room for "discussion."

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Phil Hyde — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:45:16 GMT

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]With regard to Tom's accusations they are not without evidence or backing as is currently being exposed on Australian TV.[/quote]

It is not news that supermarket brands of pet food can cause problems. The BSAVA tried to compile a reference book detailing the contents of pet foods about 15 years ago. The major brands were no problem, but the supermarket brands varied so much from batch to batch that the work became impossible.

[quote user="Roger Meacock"]Whether Tom's exclusion from this discussion was technical or "technical" is not clear whilst Arlo is deliberately not rectifying said glitch in preference to scratching his nose[/quote]

I too hope that Tom is brought back quickly. I find his postings amusing even when he directly patronises me by telling me I should take drugs and psychotherapy!

I'll stick to alcohol if that's ok...

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:33:26 GMT

Roger I don't agree with Tom's views on diet, but I will vote for him (for the 1st time ever) as a protest against his exclusion. The principle of free speech is too important/

Wynne

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Roger Meacock — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:50:38 GMT

Whether Tom's exclusion from this discussion was technical or "technical" is not clear whilst Arlo is deliberately not rectifying said glitch in preference to scratching his nose. As a non-vet Arlo seems to delight in and getting away with interfering in veterinary affairs that is not his place to interfere with.

As I posted on the Vet Times forum that was heavily doctored before being published, if interference was occurring in media activities I doubt Arlo would be so pleased with himself if it were his views being censored.

With regard to Tom's accusations they are not without evidence or backing as is currently being exposed on Australian TV.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4429328.htm

Here's another version of the same story with a pdf of the paper at the end: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-21/some-supermarket-cat-food-brands-may-cause-severe-illness-study/7263634

Best wishes

Roger

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Bob Russell — Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:06:08 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Nearly missed Kit Sturgess as the back pages were stuck together![/quote]

Didn't realise anyone got that excited about RCVS elections...

[/quote]

Ha bloody Ha!

RE: Time's running out - what would you ask?

Clive Ansell — Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:57:43 GMT

Just a thought - without looking it up, how many of you remember last years candidates and who you voted for?