- This topic has 56 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
What the hell has work got to do with anything? It isn’t pornographic.
Well…
Salse has a point though. These avatars are not helpful if you are having a sneeky look at work. And one avatar in particular has just sent a lovely lady colleague screaming
I’m sure you find some of your comments amusing Clive. Personally I don’t but then hey, matter of opinion.
In terms of people viewing at work when they shouldn’t, tough thats their problem it is they who are doing "the wrong" for want of a better phrase not someone / anyone posting a pic as an avatar which is exactly what avatars are supposed to be for.
I’m doing nothing wrong, if anyone doesn’t like it hard luck.
Flash,
I guess there are 2 ways of communicating many people’s dislike of avatars. One is informing you nicely that many people find them ‘too much’, especially when they are the size yours are.
The other is to say, well, like many others I hope, I do not come on here to see a big picture of you every time I read a thread … I’d rather not
I don’t mind avatars. I’m particularly lucky at work in that they don’t show up anyway.
I agree that some people are (sometimes) juvenile in their behaviour and squabbling, but would point out that there are ways and ways of talking to people.
Occasionally, aggressive or repetitive or whingy posts are not the most effective way of communicating even when we do have valid points.
The subsequent descent into playground banter and insults is almost inevitable, but could be avoided with a bit of civility earlier on.
This topic was supposed to be about the second last at Aintree. My earlier posts were about exactly that subject.
Look through the posts and see who started this silly squabbling, it certainly wasnt me.
Some members appear to have an inability to tolerate anything that doesn’t suit them.
I just want to talk horse racing not argue about stupid things when I’ve done nothing at all wrong or respond to Clivex’s snidety / attempts at humour.
Is it too much to ask?
Flash,
I guess there are 2 ways of communicating many people’s dislike of avatars. One is informing you nicely that many people find them ‘too much’, especially when they are the size yours are.
The other is to say, well, like many others I hope, I do not come on here to see a big picture of you every time I read a thread … I’d rather not
No offence but hard luck. I’m within my rights perfectly. Show me the rule that says you cant use an avatar the way an avatar is supposed to be used.
Sorry, but like it or lump it.
If I appear rude, I apologise but I wont be dictated to for no wrong doing because someone else doesn’t like something.
Who dictated to you Flash?
I don’t feel Avatars are
– appropiate for people checking in from work (please don’t get pompous about this .. most forumites at work, if able, will check this site)
– are overwhelming and take away from the (majority) of the content on hereWho dictated to you Flash?
I don’t feel Avatars are
– appropiate for people checking in from work (please don’t get pompous about this .. most forumites at work, if able, will check this site)
– are overwhelming and take away from the (majority) of the content on hereNonsense they don’t take away from any content. The content is all still there.
As for the work thing I’ve answered that once its not me who’s doing anything wrong.
I’m not removing it so people can complain all they like. I’m in the right, there is no rule / law anywhere that says I’m not and if I’m in the right I’ll fight my corner all year if I have to.
is there anyway that you can swivel an avatar round so that you can only see the back of the head?
Full agreement with Salse here. I am on here too much during work time and theres a bit of a git that constantly tries to see whats on my screen.
is there anyway that you can swivel an avatar round so that you can only see the back of the head?
Fantastic!
is there anyway that you can swivel an avatar round so that you can only see the back of the head?
Full agreement with Salse here. I am on here too much during work time and theres a bit of a git that constantly tries to see whats on my screen.
Hilarious once again Clive. Grow up please mate you’re getting very boring now.
And for about the tenth time, tough, your problem not mine. Complain to Cormack, I’m sure he’ll tell you I’m doing absolutely nothing wrong so basically lump iyt.
A fence has never been altered anywhere because one horse died at it or one trainer demanded it.
Granit Jack’s death brought to the head a years old issue with that fence. An issue that was covered with factual analysis both here on the forum and in the media.
Cheltenham as a racecourse and festival has transcended the sport of horse racing and now comes under intense scrutiny on the safety issue. They made the alteration on that basis (one that worked very well at the festival), not because Paul Nicholls said so.
Aintree is in a similar situation. I noted quite a few similar type jumping errors at the second last. Perhaps there is a problem there, its being checked out and rightly so. Upon further investigation a decision will be taken to alter it or leave it. It wont be because Paul Nicholls demanded it. Although as a top trainer taking his opinion on board in the decision making process would be wise don’t you think?
The stats show horses fall as much now as they did 8 years ago so the challenge of jumping is exactly the same. Unstiffening fences in recent years has saved lives and serious injury imo, for example Hobbs Hill probably wouldn’t be with us anymore if the fences at Kempton were as stiff as they used to be.
The fences at Haydock are a commercial decision and a totally separate issue.
The stats show horses fall as much now as they did 8 years ago so the challenge of jumping is exactly the same. Unstiffening fences in recent years has saved lived and serious injury imo, for example Hobbs Hill probably wouldn’t be with us anymore if the fences at Kempton were as stiff as they used to be.
.Do you have any stats to hand that that back up that comment mate?
Is that because he had not then built a platform from which he could speak and from which people would listen. This is also the man, remember GC, that openly approved the changes made to Haydock despite the protests from his peers and I think I can say with some certainty from your previous posts that you are, like me, disgusted with what they have done to that once great racecourse.
Yep, you remembered that right. But also remember that Nicholls – along with Hobbs and to a lesser extent Pipe Snr – had voted with his feet where Haydock was concerned for many, many years prior to its modification, by expedient of saddling the bearest minimum of runners at the track. As such, his positive take on the redevelopment, coming as it did in a time where he has enough of a platform to enunciate it, underpinned long-held views of the outgoing drop fences etc and surprised me not one iota.
What you have to ask is this, would Mr Nicholls have asked for any adjustments to the Cheltenham fence in question had his novice Granit Jack not come down? I personally think not. Therefore his move was more reactionary than anything else.
Be assured I never suggested otherwise or meant to give that impression. Any comments made after the death of the two National runners I mentioned previously would have been reactionary as well, wouldn’t they? An honest, direct mouthpiece for many aspects of the sport he is; but a proactive innovator, spotting problem after problem before they might occur he is not.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Jumping is part of the game. If "modifications" continue much further there will come a point where a horses ability to jump because almost an irrelevance as there will barely be a fence to test them.
Whilst broadly sympathetic to the above, I’d still insist that a happy medium between challenging and fair has to be reached in all modes of jumps racing and all courses staging it.
As was agreed – by many on here at least – after Cheltenham’s Open Meeting, a fence such as the second last on the Old Course, that can punish otherwise perfectly tidy jumps with falls or even fatality, cannot rightly be considered a fair test.
The Aintree two-out cases may or may not be less clear-cut – I’d need to see them again, and preferably from more than just a head-on angle if at all possible.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.