- This topic has 213 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Anyone would think from the above he hasn’t been given a chance – how many postings has he made on a single subject? He has literally used the forum to mount a one-man crusade. Personally, I doubt whether he would have been given the opportunity to make the same point over and over again on any other forum.
As we are not privy to any correspondence between the 2 gentleman off forum, I think it is unwise to make judgements without possession of the full facts.
However, on the "final straw" incident, Pinza’s initial comment was very much "trying to start an argument in an empty room". Rather than move on, as Pinza encourages others to do when their opinion differs from his own and he chose to pursue his agenda to its foretold conclusion. Hence, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Running a forum or group is a thankless task as anybody who has done will know. After all some people will moan in a vacuum.
Pinza may well have been passionate in his response to the whip rule changes and he is to be respected for his strongly held beliefs and views.
However I feel he also did himself little favours with his terrier like tenacity and his tendency to hijack what seemed like every thread with the whip debate.
He had made his point and I feel had little need to repeat the same points ad-nauseum, it did become tiresome. Even more so it seems apparent his complaint about the whip rules is not actually against the rules themselves but the result of a massive chip on his shoulder concerning the RSPCA and his perception of their involvement in the whip changes.
I had to smile at his complaint about Corm starting a second thread about Paul Struthers – after all how many whip related threads had he started?
Pizna did not help his cause by his reaction to criticism and his refusal to address flaws in his arguments by constantly turning such a challenge round to being a personal attack on him and his use of semantics to try and avoid probing questions will have wound people up, that’s why I gave up trying to debate with him.
I can understand Corms frustrations and much as I abhor any form of censorship a line has to be drawn and Pinza has, in my view, deliberately crossed that line.
The only trouble is, Corm banning him has played right into his hands and has made him a martyr as can be seen by the number of posts, wrongly in my view, criticising the decision that has been made.
Pinza is intelligent and knew exactly what he was doing in provoking a confrontation – he now has the result he wanted.
He even has a thread dedicated to him FFS
This place was dying a slow death (sadly) until the whip issue came along. Granted some stuff has been recycled beyond the point of usefulness, a fact that seemingly evaded, Pinza, but his passion and his prose will be missed for sure.
Tough verdict, boss.
Good morning,
Whilst I only post on occasions I do like to read the threads on a daily basis.
With regard the whip debate I have come to the conclusion that a number of contributors only wish to "win" the argument rather than debate the current status and potentially find some common ground. At the end of the day I just want to see what’s good for the jockeys, horses and racing in general but the debate has moved away from that to individuals trying to find shreds of evidence to support their position. Hence why I take a back seat on that debate.
With regard to Pinza I found his contributions eloquent, entertaining and informative if a little cutting on occasions. I must give the man credit for the huge amount of time he has given the forum, particularly in the last few weeks. I didn’t always agree with his language and how he came across but everyone is different.
Cormack, it was apparent to me that he was trying to stir things up on that final thread. If I had been you I would have simply ignored him and starved him of a reaction.
At the end of the day he wanted a reaction and he sure got it.Very sad that it has come to this with Pinza. Since I became aware of this forum a few years ago and finally joined it a couple of months ago, I quickly realised that Pinza was one of the key members, if not THE most important.
Certainly, he was one of the most prolific. I was impressed with his knowledgeable, informative and tenacious approach and complimented him on this in one of my own minor contributions to the whip debate. He was gracious enough to thank me for this immediately.
Obviously, the whip debates have got very heated and I have been amazed how hot under the collar people have got about the matter. We all have our own hobby horses (Tanya Stevenson’s sloppy speech and Willie Carson’s rambling and inarticulate waffling are my own more lightweight irritants) but I try to use humour, rather than bad-tempered abuse and obsessive ranting in my musings. Perhaps this is where Pinza has gone wrong.
Certainly, David Cormack is entitled to say enough is enough if it is his forum. In many ways, it is laudable that swear words are banned and that personal abuse is not tolerated. You only have to look at other online discussion forums to see that they allow all sorts of foul language and personal abuse. For a time, I followed some of the threads about the celebrities who have obtained injunctions to cover up sexual antics and you would never believe the abusive, foul and expletive-ridden contributions they include. Entertaining they may be but they are pretty offensive, as well.
The high standards of this forum are, in some ways, refreshing. Certainly, I enjoy using and contributing to it in a very minor way and have been impressed by how it is run. It is also very easy to use.
Pinza could perhaps be compared with Alastair Down, who is regarded as the best of the Racing Post’s journalists. Alastair Down must have had some sort of bust-up with his bosses last year and I remember that, about the time of the Cheltenham Festival last year, he had disappeared from the paper, with John Francome saying on the Channel 4 coverage that the one thing missing from that year’s Festival was Alastair Down’s contributions in the Racing Post.
A few months on, however, and after a few guest contributions, he seemed to have been welcomed back on board with all his previous lengthy reports and features. He had obviously buried the hatchet with his bosses and had patched it up and made a reappearance.
Whether this will happen with Pinza, surely one of the most authoritative voices on this forum, remains to be seen. Perhaps there will be a similar rapprochement, with the agreement to moderate his strong feelings and quick temper, of course.
It would be a shame if other contributors turn their backs on the forum, as seems to be being hinted above.
I doubt Pinza would be so unprincipled and duplicitous as to come back under a different pseudonym, not least because the forum will know his real email address.I can’t agree that Pinza had a personal vendetta against the RSPCA, as I’ve know people over the years with the same opinion [and, for that reason hold the same view myself]. I honestly believe that all he cared about was the future of racing. Sadly, the whole issue seems to have divided the racing community into, seemingly, those who care about horses [anti whip] and those who don’t [pro whip], and it’s far more complex than that.
As we are all not party to the warnings etc and the private communication between both parties I think that we should try to understand cormack’s position. It must be a really difficult task running this forum. It is still a million miles better than any other alternative forum.
The issue highlighted above about hijacking many a thread to try and , yet again, turn them into a whip based discussion, was indeed irksome. There are a few others who also have a tendency to do this.
There are rules that we all must abide by and I am sure that cormack has simply tried to ensure this to attempt to be fair to one and all.
Still, sad to see him go, but onwards and upwards.Pinza had verbal skills aplenty, but he also had an ego that forced him to abandon debate in favour of winning. Big points, small points, any points, they all had to be won. All well and good if you are playing a competetive game or sport, but a forum is an arena for exchanging views, not an arena for gladiators to win every thrust and parry at all costs. A forum is not the battle experience that Pinza was seeking, hence his final desire to be thrown out rather than modify his behaviour. This blinkered approach has not helped him because now his voice will not be heard.
It is sad that he could not use his skills to advance his causes in a measured manner. His unfettered style and desire to win did put off some contributors from engaging with him in debate and the forum suffered because we did not hear their views. Well done to all those who tried to have a good debate with him and persevered to the end – what patience and fortitude!
There are always important and fascinating issues about horseracing to be debated. We want people to be heard, not mauled by an oversized ego just because they have a differing view.
BBC 606 seemed to ban people fairly often when they did far less than Pinza. There has to be some form of moderation, and unfortunately because it is not site run by an "independent" corporation, but one person, whenever disciplinary action is taken people will question the impartiality of it.
My opinion of Pinza is neither here nor there, I just find it a little odd that his expulsion has been announced to the public.
I suppose you could argue for transparency and to discourage similar behaviour.
Cormack surprised you are throwing your toys out of the pram.
Very immature behaviour.
I enjoyed debating with Pinza and he was one of my favourite posters. A way with words a pleasure to read (although did have to Google a few).
Credit to him, I often had heated disagreements on one subject which were instantly forgotten when debating another. Although Cormack may not have had the same experience.
The whip debate did see a change. I found Pinza would leap on one or two of my words and twist them to his advantage. May be sometimes it was my fault, not explaining myself well enough (I don’t have his gift). But it seemed to happen too often for that to be the case on every occasion. Noticed Pinza would do the same with other posters too (including Cormack).
He’d also expect others to answer any question, no matter how many times already answered; at the same time as seemingly avoiding difficult questions asked of him.Had hoped when the whip debate died down Pinza would go back to his old ways. It’s sad he won’t have the opportunity. However, I understand Pinza did not make it easy and tested Cormack’s patience too far after many warnings.
Hope (like TAPK) after a while Pinza will be allowed back in to the fold. I know he’ll be greatly missed by this forum.
Value Is EverythingGuys, if you miss Pinza and the others who can’t post here any longer why not set-up your own forum and invite them along.
Running a forum is a hobby, and when people make it unpleasant you are quite within your rights to get rid of them.
Disgusting! You should be ashamed of yourself cormack, you’re acting like a tyrant.
There’s little doubt if Pinza had the same views as you on a foam stick he would still be posting.I’ve already said that if Pinza wants to email me posts relating to the whip I’ll post them.
I’m always very reluctant to stop anyone posting. I only do so when they place me with no other option.
Drone – I don’t read every post on the forum before I post, I simply don’t have the time, so sometimes there is duplication, but I had read the ones re-Paul Struthers. My thread was perhaps titled poorly in that respect though, I agree.
But it is not that thread that caused the problem, it’s been an accumulation of things going back a very long period of time (predating the whip discussion by a long time). The PS thread simply illustrated yet again that the guy does want to start an argument (not a debate) every opportunity. People find that tiresome to read and it does the forum no favours IMO.
While it’s sad to lose Pinza (and his ilk) I prefer to think about it in terms of the people we’ll retain.attract as a result of having less ‘infighting’.
Drone – Davies was gone before my time.
If we didn’t have some kind of fairly strong moderation then the place would descend into Betfair-forum type chaos. If anything I think my moderation isn’t quick/strict enough rather than being overly strict.
I run the forum because I enjoy it, and I also enjoy seeing others enjoy it. Pinza made the former impossible and the latter divisive.
I think that if anything David you are under emphasising the need for a strong and effective moderator. If individuals are overly forthright, dismissive of others, and in some cases downright rude, then this can be intimidatory to some members (obviously I am of the more thick skinned variety). This in turn may make some people reluctant to respond to posts, and certainly to start new threads. This inhibits healthy debate and will eventually lead to a much less healthy forum.
This forum is much more stimulating than others, and I tip my hat to you, as it must be a nightmare from time to time keeping all the ducks in a row.- Total Posts 17716
Some people love a bit of power.
Simple as that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.