Forum

Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
goodness knows what else!
A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Bye, Paul.
I'll have to leave anytime now too (at least for a while) because I can't keep up with all the posts either, but I shall do so with regret because I like the people on this forum.
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
> box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
> goodness knows what else!
> A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
> I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
> Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Try the digest or just go to the forum and don't opt for emails.
I just read the posts that really interest me.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:59 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bye, Paul.
> I'll have to leave anytime now too (at least for a while) because I can't keep up with all the posts either, but I shall do so with regret because I like the people on this forum.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
> > box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
> > goodness knows what else!
> > A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
> > I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
> > Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>

Marie,

I would be very sorry to see you go quiet again, because your knowledge is outstanding, but I understand only too well that the increased number of messages can't be handled anymore (and the yahoo format doesn't help either). I'm on digest, and it is still by far too much.
I wonder, do you share your wealth of knowledge in any other way? It would be such a loss if you didn't. I seem to remember that you mentioned writing a book - any chance to see it published any time soon?

Renate


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Bye, Paul.
> I'll have to leave anytime now too (at least for a while) because I can't keep up with all the posts either, but I shall do so with regret because I like the people on this forum.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
> > box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
> > goodness knows what else!
> > A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
> > I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
> > Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

From: walkerjaneway
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Forum


> I would be very sorry to see you go quiet again, because your knowledge is
> outstanding, but I understand only too well that the increased number of
> messages can't be handled anymore (and the yahoo format doesn't help
> either). I'm on digest, and it is still by far too much.

I'm sure it'll settle down soon. I run a forum which forensically dissects
the Harry Potter books, and when the seventh book came out we were getting
through 200 posts a day - but it calmed down after a couple of months.

--- In , "walkerjaneway" <renatemm@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
>
> I would be very sorry to see you go quiet again, because your knowledge is outstanding, but I understand only too well that the increased number of messages can't be handled anymore (and the yahoo format doesn't help either). I'm on digest, and it is still by far too much.


But there's a third option: web-only, no email! Much easier to keep track of discussions, too.

I'm sure older members feel annoyed at the sudden growth in the number of new members (most of whom are probably discussing things that have been talked about over and over again in the past), and I apologise for my own part in this new deluge of messages, but surely the solution isn't to make people feel guilty about participating in the discussions...?

Thanks Renate.
I've got the first few chapters of a book on Edward Earl of Warwick ready in terms of research but haven't started yet. I first have to just organise some pictures to use with an article on Miles Metcalfe I have written for the Society's upcoming Study Weekend, and then I will be ready to begin, health and unforeseen stuff permitting. If I spend too much time posting messages I need kicking off with a good nagging.
Marie

--- In , "walkerjaneway" <renatemm@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
>
> I would be very sorry to see you go quiet again, because your knowledge is outstanding, but I understand only too well that the increased number of messages can't be handled anymore (and the yahoo format doesn't help either). I'm on digest, and it is still by far too much.
> I wonder, do you share your wealth of knowledge in any other way? It would be such a loss if you didn't. I seem to remember that you mentioned writing a book - any chance to see it published any time soon?
>
> Renate
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Bye, Paul.
> > I'll have to leave anytime now too (at least for a while) because I can't keep up with all the posts either, but I shall do so with regret because I like the people on this forum.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
> > > box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
> > > goodness knows what else!
> > > A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
> > > I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
> > > Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Pansy, it would be counterproductive if no one spoke other than older members. Isn't the forum one of the platforms to spread the word about real Richard? If we are discouraged to post or talk about things we are ignorant about, I don't see the point of anyone being part of this forum.
Web only version is the best option.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:13 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "walkerjaneway" wrote:
> >
> > Marie,
> >
> > I would be very sorry to see you go quiet again, because your knowledge is outstanding, but I understand only too well that the increased number of messages can't be handled anymore (and the yahoo format doesn't help either). I'm on digest, and it is still by far too much.
>
> But there's a third option: web-only, no email! Much easier to keep track of discussions, too.
>
> I'm sure older members feel annoyed at the sudden growth in the number of new members (most of whom are probably discussing things that have been talked about over and over again in the past), and I apologise for my own part in this new deluge of messages, but surely the solution isn't to make people feel guilty about participating in the discussions...?
>
>

Like Paul I've decided to take time out. I'm also tired of wild speculation, repeats and one-upmanship and I miss the humour which used to be such a great feature of the community. It's sad because coping with the sheer volume of emails (which you have to read even on the web)makes you short-tempered with those you respect.

I shall wait until things calm down, though who knows when that will be? We have indeed let the genie out of the bottle.

Hilary



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Everyone seems to be over thinking everything here, which is why my mail
> box is jammed up every few hours with repeats, speculations, and
> goodness knows what else!
> A lot of which I find offensive to Richard's memory.
> I'm sure some will be very pleased to learn I am now following Annette
> Carson and going away until this nonsense and continuous sniping dies down.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Hello, I too have decided to take a break for the same reasons as Paul and others who feel the same way.
Some good people have left this forum, people who have excellent knowledge of Richard and his times, the people now on the forum are missing out on this knowledge.
I may come back when sense returns.
God Bless Richard and His family.
Loyaulte me Lie.
Christine

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, I too have decided to take a break for the same reasons as Paul and others who feel the same way.
> Some good people have left this forum, people who have excellent knowledge of Richard and his times, the people now on the forum are missing out on this knowledge.
> I may come back when sense returns.
> God Bless Richard and His family.
> Loyaulte me Lie.
> Christine
>
>
>

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
 
As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
 
I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
 
Liz

From: pansydobersby >

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  

One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.

I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.

Pamela


________________________________
: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:



 
Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
 
As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
 
I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
 
Liz

From: pansydobersby >

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

I sincerely hope that not too many of the old timers leave. The only difference now is the sheer volume - this month is 10x a good month up to last summer and should settle down eventually.
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Forum



Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume. As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped. I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).

As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that. There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.

I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.

Liz

From: pansydobersby >

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
Olga

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  
>
> One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
>
> I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
>
> Pamela
>
>
> ________________________________
> : liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
>  
> As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
>  
> I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
>  
> Liz
>
> From: pansydobersby >
>
> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Olga! Go to the Richard the Third Society website (British version) and click on "Richard the Third." There you will see a link for "Controversy." That has a nice, tight discussion of the princes in the tower as well as the bones found there. Also, here on this forum, under "Files" a Ricardian has put up the original analysis of the bones including pictures. Of course, the dental experts assumed that the bones found were the princes, when, in fact, there is no such proof. The bones are now residing in an urn in Westminster Abbey. Maire.

--- In , "olgalockley" <olgalockley@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
> Olga
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  
> >
> > One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
> >
> > I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
> >
> > Pamela
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > : liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
> >  
> > As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
> >  
> > I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
> >  
> > Liz
> >
> > From: pansydobersby >
> >
> > As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
> >
> > I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The bones were discovered in the 17th century during building work at The Tower.   They were discarded on a rubbish tip for a while before someone thought they might be the bones of the princes.  They were collected, along with some animal bones, and a rusty nail and put in an urn where you can see them now.

In the 1930s, the bones were examined.  Unfortunately, the people who examined them STARTED with the idea they were the princes and so worked backwards, rather than forwards.  They dutifully concluded they were indeed the princes.  Yet, they didn't have the techniques available to science today and a re-examination of the bones has been requested a couple of times in the last twenty years or so, but the requests have all been refused.


________________________________
From: olgalockley <olgalockley@...> wrote:

 
Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
Olga

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  
>
> One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
>
> I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
>
> Pamela
>
>
> ________________________________
> : liz williams wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
>  
> As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
>  
> I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
>  
> Liz
>
> From: pansydobersby >
>
> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Me too..... I am definitely a newbie, and haven't the "in depth and comprehensive knowledge" of so many of our members. For me this is a Master Class! If I am deluged, or frankly too behind to even catch on to the thread, I am grateful for the opportunity. I will hang in there.... And hope others do too.
Happy Monday to all


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of pansydobersby
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:34 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Forum



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hello, I too have decided to take a break for the same reasons as Paul and others who feel the same way.
> Some good people have left this forum, people who have excellent knowledge of Richard and his times, the people now on the forum are missing out on this knowledge.
> I may come back when sense returns.
> God Bless Richard and His family.
> Loyaulte me Lie.
> Christine
>
>
>

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

I think the format of this forum makes it incredibly difficult for newcomers to negotiate the threads and also to work out "how to behave". Old-timers might resent newbies asking questions which are easily answered if they hunted about on the RIII website but they're still legitimate questions. This is a forum for the Society members, not just for experts. For years surely the Society has been wanting more interest, more members (we are down at least 2000 since I joined despite the age of the internet), more activity - well, now it's here and it's not terribly easy negotiating a way through lots of new questions, theories, suppositions and the like. A forum which had a Richard 101 section and "Hints for Posting" and easily accesible sub-forums about certain areas of study/questions, would be more open to managing the confusing threads and name-changing of thread titles. Sniping and rudeness occurs all over in forums, but it shouldn't put people off when this is one of the very few places to talk RIII discussion.

I know lots of regular users here like this format, so fair enough and it doesn't have to change but it's terribly sad that such knowledgeable folk feel they need to leave. The forum needs the knowledgeable folk to help with informed discussion!

Col

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I sincerely hope that not too many of the old timers leave. The only difference now is the sheer volume - this month is 10x a good month up to last summer and should settle down eventually.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Forum
>
>
>
> Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume. As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped. I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).
>
> As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that. There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
>
> I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.
>
> Liz
>
> From: pansydobersby >
>
> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hello, I too have decided to take a break for the same reasons as Paul and others who feel the same way.
> Some good people have left this forum, people who have excellent knowledge of Richard and his times, the people now on the forum are missing out on this knowledge.
> I may come back when sense returns.
> God Bless Richard and His family.
> Loyaulte me Lie.
> Christine

Carol responds:

Hi, Christine> Please don't leave. And Marie, we need you!
If all of us old members leave, who will help the newbies?

Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.

For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?

If we could supply good, detailed answers complete with sources to these questions and others, we old members wouldn't need to repeat the same points over and over--and we could cut down on the number of posts on the forum.

For now, let me repeat my request that we stop, for now, posting one-line posts ("thanks for posting that" and so on) so people won't have to delete so many messages.

I plead guilty to responding to OT posts. I'll try not to do that. We have to do something to keep our old members from leaving without at the same time making our new members feel unwelcome.

Carol

pansydobersby wrote:

> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
Carol responds:

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that at least a few old members feel the same way. It's taking far too much of our time to read and respond to the sheer number of posts that have come in, many of which duplicate one another. I think it would help if we read the entire thread before responding. Sometimes, we've already answered a point but someone who hasn't reached our post asks the same question again so we repeat the point. I suggest that we make the point only once; the person will reach our post eventually. And please, before asking a question within a given thread, read the whole thread to see if it has already been asked and answered.

Let's all do what we can to hold down the number of posts and stop driving our old members away. I'm tempted to stay away, too--I'm spending far too much work time here--but we can't do that. It would be unfair to the new people,

Carol

Col I do so agree with you. I'm not an old timer, I'm a new timer I only joined in November but immediately it became clear that you can be a bit of an irritant if you raise a question that's been discussed before - even though you may see it from a different angle. And I don't blame the others who think here we go again. The forum format clearly needs a re-vamp.

I'd like to make it clear I'm not taking time out because of newcomers; I was one very recently, but the influx of 300 emails when you take one day out is daunting, and you know that people are getting irritable wading through them all and this comes out in their posts.

I've always supported and defended some 'old timers', as they well know, but sometimes they speak as though they are the only authority because they have studied everything, quote from the sources and know everything. But sources are open to interpretation and only the most daring professor would quote their own opinion as fact. And sometimes you can be so drowned in the sources that you can't push your head above water and be receptive to new ideas.

I shall still read the posts here (how I shall miss the banter) and perhaps come back when things have calmed a bit.

Hilary

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the format of this forum makes it incredibly difficult for newcomers to negotiate the threads and also to work out "how to behave". Old-timers might resent newbies asking questions which are easily answered if they hunted about on the RIII website but they're still legitimate questions. This is a forum for the Society members, not just for experts. For years surely the Society has been wanting more interest, more members (we are down at least 2000 since I joined despite the age of the internet), more activity - well, now it's here and it's not terribly easy negotiating a way through lots of new questions, theories, suppositions and the like. A forum which had a Richard 101 section and "Hints for Posting" and easily accesible sub-forums about certain areas of study/questions, would be more open to managing the confusing threads and name-changing of thread titles. Sniping and rudeness occurs all over in forums, but it shouldn't put people off when this is one of the very few places to talk RIII discussion.
>
> I know lots of regular users here like this format, so fair enough and it doesn't have to change but it's terribly sad that such knowledgeable folk feel they need to leave. The forum needs the knowledgeable folk to help with informed discussion!
>
> Col
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > I sincerely hope that not too many of the old timers leave. The only difference now is the sheer volume - this month is 10x a good month up to last summer and should settle down eventually.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: liz williams
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Forum
> >
> >
> >
> > Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume. As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped. I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).
> >
> > As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that. There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
> >
> > I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: pansydobersby >
> >
> > As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
> >
> > I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I understand completely, Carol. When I came on here I was under the impression that it was a free-for-all discussion amongst 'equals' and I must have got up noses with a couple of queries.

I shall do more research in future before any enquiries, promise!.
I have to say that I only came on here from the Facebook site, because every other post there seemed to be about Richard needing to be buried with his wife and son......it was driving me mad!!! ....so I do know what its like! 
Thanks for everyones hard work on here.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Forum

 
pansydobersby wrote:

> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
Carol responds:

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that at least a few old members feel the same way. It's taking far too much of our time to read and respond to the sheer number of posts that have come in, many of which duplicate one another. I think it would help if we read the entire thread before responding. Sometimes, we've already answered a point but someone who hasn't reached our post asks the same question again so we repeat the point. I suggest that we make the point only once; the person will reach our post eventually. And please, before asking a question within a given thread, read the whole thread to see if it has already been asked and answered.

Let's all do what we can to hold down the number of posts and stop driving our old members away. I'm tempted to stay away, too--I'm spending far too much work time here--but we can't do that. It would be unfair to the new people,

Carol

As a lurker of many years and a Society member for about 25 years I too am saddened at the loss of so many posters who have added greatly to my own knowledge of Richard and his times. 
I feel that this is not the time to abandon the Forum as so many new people are just finding it now. Many may b come and decide to leave in a short time, others may become the backbone of the Forum but without the people that have been here the Forum may change and all of us may be the poorer for it. 
I ask that the people who are leaving think again, count to ten, show the other check but stay and guide the \Forum through these exciting times.

Carole


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 13:42
Subject: Re: Re: Forum


 
Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
 
As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
 
I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
 
Liz

From: pansydobersby >

As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?

I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.

Speaking purely as a member of 6 months I cannot justify myself as a member
of the "old guard" however I am now getting over 300 e mails a day being
repeated over a small network of computers and Cloud devices that I use for
work. I find it very time consuming to read each and every individual post,
especially if many are repeats of prior answered questions, studies and
discussions.
I think that it would be highly beneficial if prior to posting a random
brain thought, people would have the kindness to at least read the prior
topics as many topics have been discussed to the nth degree and are already
posted.
Often I see the same questions followed by the same answers followed by the
same conjecture. It would be most beneficial for everyone now that the
membership is so large if people would take the trouble to read prior posts.
The site has a search engine so you can easily find any post ..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

http://www.richardiii.net/

George

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Forum

pansydobersby wrote:

> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened
and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the
way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil.
Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion
forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes
with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies
are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be
good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but
without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
Carol responds:

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect that at least a few old members
feel the same way. It's taking far too much of our time to read and respond
to the sheer number of posts that have come in, many of which duplicate one
another. I think it would help if we read the entire thread before
responding. Sometimes, we've already answered a point but someone who hasn't
reached our post asks the same question again so we repeat the point. I
suggest that we make the point only once; the person will reach our post
eventually. And please, before asking a question within a given thread, read
the whole thread to see if it has already been asked and answered.

Let's all do what we can to hold down the number of posts and stop driving
our old members away. I'm tempted to stay away, too--I'm spending far too
much work time here--but we can't do that. It would be unfair to the new
people,

Carol



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Carol said
Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.

For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?

 
Liz Replied:
 
Carol, that's a brilliant idea.    I know that other history forums do that and it would be a big help for newer members.  It would help me too - I used to know all this stuff and have forgotten quite a bit!
 
Liz
 

liz williams wrote:
>
> Carol said
> Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.
>
> For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?
>
>  
> Liz Replied:
>  
> Carol, that's a brilliant idea.    I know that other history forums do that and it would be a big help for newer members.  It would help me too - I used to know all this stuff and have forgotten quite a bit!

Carol responds:

Glad you like the idea. Now, how do we go about it, assuming that others like it, too?

Carol

As a newbie, who frequently makes a) one line replies 2) emotional responses and/or 3) asks something REALLY stupid, I think this is an absolutely fabulous and wonderful idea. I confess to being really lost over some things, but terrifically interested in most, and have a stack of books to read, and flagged emails to reread! So please, all of you, stay, stay, stay. We can agree to be nice, not snippy, or whatever. I swear I will only post one liners to a private email, and I shall try and limit my really dumb questions, if at all possible. This is a wonderful site. And we are all here for one reason. And, one last thing, the new pencil drawing of King Richard is fabulous!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Forum



Carol said
Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.

For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?


Liz Replied:

Carol, that's a brilliant idea. I know that other history forums do that and it would be a big help for newer members. It would help me too - I used to know all this stuff and have forgotten quite a bit!

Liz

Good idea Carol I would think that this could be easily worked out with the forum moderator to be in the opening statements on the site.

George

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Forum

Carol said
Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.

For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?


Liz Replied:

Carol, that's a brilliant idea. I know that other history forums do that and it would be a big help for newer members. It would help me too - I used to know all this stuff and have forgotten quite a bit!

Liz







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Pansy, I am as stunned as you are about people feeling they need to leave. Like Liz, I read and comment on posts I am interested in.
I am sorry to say but Paul has been testy and unfriendly for sometime to everyone! But most people have tried to get along as best they can. If new members don't come in, this forum is going to become stagnant. And isn't the forum's aim is to interest people in Richard?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 25, 2013, at 8:42 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume. As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped. I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).
>
> As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that. There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
>
> I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.
>
> Liz
>
> From: pansydobersby >
>
> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>
> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Forum


> Glad you like the idea. Now, how do we go about it, assuming that others
> like it, too?

Some of it's already in the files section but they're not that easy to get
at or all very clearly labelled. To start off with you could have a single
home page which links to each of the files and which gives a clear summary
of what each one is about.

I like it, too. And I'm willing to contribute answers if this can be organized. My qualifications? I've contributed articles and book reviews to the US branch Ricardian Register since 2006.

Marion

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> liz williams wrote:
> >
> > Carol said
> > Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.
> >
> > For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?
> >
> >  
> > Liz Replied:
> >  
> > Carol, that's a brilliant idea.    I know that other history forums do that and it would be a big help for newer members.  It would help me too - I used to know all this stuff and have forgotten quite a bit!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Glad you like the idea. Now, how do we go about it, assuming that others like it, too?
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I think that it would be highly beneficial if prior to posting a random
> brain thought, people would have the kindness to at least read the prior
> topics as many topics have been discussed to the nth degree and are already
> posted.
> Often I see the same questions followed by the same answers followed by the
> same conjecture. It would be most beneficial for everyone now that the
> membership is so large if people would take the trouble to read prior posts.
> The site has a search engine so you can easily find any post ..
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/
>
> George
>

The problem is, though, that for a lot of people (if not most?) the joy of discussion is in - well - the discussion. It's great to have readily accessible archives full of valuable information, and obviously there are also libraries and books and peer-reviewed articles to get engrossed in and to read for research. If history is your passion, that's the bulk of it: reading, reading, reading.

But I suppose when you're really interested and passionate about a subject (whatever that subject is: no matter if it's history or fly-fishing or old stamps or keeping chickens), the enthusiasm often also manifests itself in obsessing over seemingly pointless details, going off on silly flights of fancy, and wanting to get to know like-minded people. When your partner falls asleep at the very mention of stamps or chickens, and your friends just don't understand what the fuss is about, it's comforting to know that there are people out there who Get It. And not only to know that they exist, but to be able to associate with them.

This is my long-winded way of saying that sometimes, people really need to re-invent the wheel for themselves, or among a group of similarly less-experienced enthusiasts, in order to find a vent for their enthusiasm. And some people (like myself) are too fond of going over their favourite topics of conversation, over and over and over again. I understand it can be annoying.

Admittedly Yahoo Groups isn't quite the right format for all that.

Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.

The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign.  

See Web Extract:

In 1222 it had been decreed that Westminster Abbey was exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop of London and subject alone to the Pope. In 1534 Henry VIII transferred jurisdiction from the Pope to the Crown. He dissolved the Benedictine Abbey in 1540 and designated it as a cathedral. In 1556 the Catholic queen Mary I brought back the monks but this monastery was dissolved in 1559 and Elizabeth I constituted the present Collegiate Church under royal authority on 21 May 1560. The term derives from the "peculiar (or particular) jurisdiction" of certain churches and chapels which are not subject to any archbishop or bishop but come under the direct authority of the Sovereign.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 15:24
>Subject: The Bones in Westminster Abbey
>
>
> 
>The bones were discovered in the 17th century during building work at The Tower.   They were discarded on a rubbish tip for a while before someone thought they might be the bones of the princes.  They were collected, along with some animal bones, and a rusty nail and put in an urn where you can see them now.
>
>In the 1930s, the bones were examined.  Unfortunately, the people who examined them STARTED with the idea they were the princes and so worked backwards, rather than forwards.  They dutifully concluded they were indeed the princes.  Yet, they didn't have the techniques available to science today and a re-examination of the bones has been requested a couple of times in the last twenty years or so, but the requests have all been refused.
>
>________________________________
>From: olgalockley olgalockley@...> wrote:
>
> 
>Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
>Olga
>
>--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>>
>> The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  
>>
>> One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
>>
>> I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
>>
>> Pamela
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> : liz williams wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
>>  
>> As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
>>  
>> I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
>>  
>> Liz
>>
>> From: pansydobersby >
>>
>> As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
>>
>> I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.
>
> For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?
>
"George Butterfield" responded:
>
> Good idea Carol I would think that this could be easily worked out with the forum moderator to be in the opening statements on the site.

Carol again:

Thanks, everyone, but I need Neil's input, and I certainly don't want to take this on myself as a solo project. Maybe we could start by submitting questions we think would need to be answered with the new people joining in. Then Neil could post the list of questions and we could volunteer to answer one or more. Then the responses could be submitted to Neil for approval.If Marie would them for content, that would be ideal (but she may be too busy to help). I can copyedit them to make sure that they contain no mechanical errors.

Would that work, Neil? Please join in.

Carol
Carol

I am happy to be part of a virtual team to help put together an FAQ section. It can be incorporated into the files area and I can then update the Forum's front page intro to steer people to it before joining/starting debates without awareness.

Regards,

Neil



On 25 Feb 2013, at 23:10, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.
> >
> > For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?
> >
> "George Butterfield" responded:
> >
> > Good idea Carol I would think that this could be easily worked out with the forum moderator to be in the opening statements on the site.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Thanks, everyone, but I need Neil's input, and I certainly don't want to take this on myself as a solo project. Maybe we could start by submitting questions we think would need to be answered with the new people joining in. Then Neil could post the list of questions and we could volunteer to answer one or more. Then the responses could be submitted to Neil for approval.If Marie would them for content, that would be ideal (but she may be too busy to help). I can copyedit them to make sure that they contain no mechanical errors.
>
> Would that work, Neil? Please join in.
>
> Carol
> Carol
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Some of it's already in the files section but they're not that easy to get at or all very clearly labelled. To start off with you could have a single home page which links to each of the files and which gives a clear summary of what each one is about.

Carol responds:

As far as I know, only one person can rearrange the files or rewrite the paragraph on the home page, and that's the moderator, Neil. The rest of us can contribute files or photos and rearrange or delete our own contributions but that's about it. If we have an FAQ, it would be wonderful if he could mention it on the home page and, ideally request that new members read it before posting.

The files are actually quite easy to get at if you're actually on the website rather than your e-mail (just click on the Files link to the left of the messages), but, yes, they are rather jumbled, probably because they've been contributed at different times by different people.

We tried Google Groups for awhile as an alternative, but everyone hated it and we came back here. For all its faults, it's home!

Carol

Arthur wrote:
>
> Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
> 'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.
>
> The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite make out the point of your post, Arthur. If you're saying that the queen could grant permission to examine the bones in the urn, you're correct as far as I know. The problem is that she hasn't done so and apparently has no intention of doing so.

I had hopes that her cousin, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (whose name fits nicely with his role as patron of the Richard III Society) would exercise whatever influence he has with her and attempt to persuade her that it's high time those bones were scientifically and objectively examined, but evidently he hasn't done so. He hasn't even, as far as I know, commented on the finding of his namesake's skeleton. Very disappointing, at least to me.

Carol

Neil Trump wrote:
>
> I am happy to be part of a virtual team to help put together an FAQ section. It can be incorporated into the files area and I can then update the Forum's front page intro to steer people to it before joining/starting debates without awareness.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Neil. I'm glad that you like my idea. How shall we work this? Should we start by submitting questions to you that we'd be willing to answer or would like someone else to answer? I know you've just banned offlist posts, but this could be an exception or you could set up a special address for potential questions for the FAQ. If we submit them onlist, they'll just get lost (as I'm sure that my sample questions already are though I can easily find them again).

Carol

Carol,
I understand your disappointment that having Royal patronage has not enabled the re-examination of the bones or indeed, anything else within the Queen's remit.  (Windsor where Edward IV and others are buried is also a Royal Peculiar)
It is believed that HRH has tried as far as he sees fit, but it must be remembered that all Royal patronage is subject to the Queens permission.
In other words, he treads a fine line and we remain very grateful to him for what appears to a lifelong genuine interest.
Prince Charles may have a different take on this, as and when...........  


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 2:10
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey

 

Arthur wrote:
>
> Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
> 'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.
>
> The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite make out the point of your post, Arthur. If you're saying that the queen could grant permission to examine the bones in the urn, you're correct as far as I know. The problem is that she hasn't done so and apparently has no intention of doing so.

I had hopes that her cousin, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (whose name fits nicely with his role as patron of the Richard III Society) would exercise whatever influence he has with her and attempt to persuade her that it's high time those bones were scientifically and objectively examined, but evidently he hasn't done so. He hasn't even, as far as I know, commented on the finding of his namesake's skeleton. Very disappointing, at least to me.

Carol

That would be MOST Welcome & Valued.

As well as Richard, Could we have any ACCURATE info. As follows:

Bones in Stairwell / Query Princes?

Execution of Clarence /Burial of same. 

Any 'Acts of Parliament' Enacted by Richard [Any that are STILL Valid today.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013, 23:21
>Subject: Re: Re: Forum
>
>
> 
>I am happy to be part of a virtual team to help put together an FAQ section. It can be incorporated into the files area and I can then update the Forum's front page intro to steer people to it before joining/starting debates without awareness.
>
>Regards,
>
>Neil
>
>On 25 Feb 2013, at 23:10, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> Carol earlier:
>> > Maybe we old members could work together to create an FAQ to prevent having to answer the same old questions.
>> >
>> > For example, what is a precontract and why would its existence have made Richard's nephews illegitimate? Were Anne and Richard legally married? Don't the bones in the urn prove that Richard killed his nephews? Did Richard want to marry his niece? What is Titulus Regius?
>> >
>> "George Butterfield" responded:
>> >
>> > Good idea Carol I would think that this could be easily worked out with the forum moderator to be in the opening statements on the site.
>>
>> Carol again:
>>
>> Thanks, everyone, but I need Neil's input, and I certainly don't want to take this on myself as a solo project. Maybe we could start by submitting questions we think would need to be answered with the new people joining in. Then Neil could post the list of questions and we could volunteer to answer one or more. Then the responses could be submitted to Neil for approval.If Marie would them for content, that would be ideal (but she may be too busy to help). I can copyedit them to make sure that they contain no mechanical errors.
>>
>> Would that work, Neil? Please join in.
>>
>> Carol
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree, the Leicester findings are only part of the exercise, [Though a MAJOR part.] Truth in our history is VITAL!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 2:10
>Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey
>
>
> 
>
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
>> 'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.
>>
>> The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign. [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I can't quite make out the point of your post, Arthur. If you're saying that the queen could grant permission to examine the bones in the urn, you're correct as far as I know. The problem is that she hasn't done so and apparently has no intention of doing so.
>
>I had hopes that her cousin, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (whose name fits nicely with his role as patron of the Richard III Society) would exercise whatever influence he has with her and attempt to persuade her that it's high time those bones were scientifically and objectively examined, but evidently he hasn't done so. He hasn't even, as far as I know, commented on the finding of his namesake's skeleton. Very disappointing, at least to me.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I think what's been happening is to some extent inevitable given the explosion of interest in all things Richard over the last six months.  A small and very self-contained group has suddenly got larger and busier, which can be a bit of a culture shock.  Furthermore, the design of the forum makes following discussions problematic given the increasing post count, and effective moderation is rendered equally difficult.

There are no quick and simple answers to the above (a wholesale revamp didn't particularly meet with much favour when it was suggested by someone a little while ago), so there's little anyone can do except keep frustrations under a tight right - and, I would have thought, email the moderator directly if you're feeling particularly aggrieved and not the person who has offended you.

One thing that doesn't help is any hint of the "old guard" (I've seen that phrase used once or twice and, intentionally or not, it carries an implicit value judgement) resenting the influx of new people.  Length of time on a forum is irrelevant (I say that as someone who joined in 2008), and new members, with all their questions, are to be celebrated as they are what will keep the group alive.  Yes, respect must be shown to some very knowledgeable opinion on here.  But respect is a two-way process that hasn't always been as evident as it should be and I know of at least a couple of people who've found the place so unwelcoming that they no longer visit.

One last thing: it really shouldn't matter if someone's pro or anti Richard.  I'm pro, but I'd be delighted if, say, Alison Weir were to join.  She might learn some real history, for a start...

Jonathan

That's fair enough but I'm surprised he hasn't even made a single comment about Richard being found.    As Patron I would have expected him to at least say "jolly fascinating, what?"
 
Liz

From: RONALD COOKSLEY <greyfox.cooksley@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 8:37
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey

 
Carol,
I understand your disappointment that having Royal patronage has not enabled the re-examination of the bones or indeed, anything else within the Queen's remit.  (Windsor where Edward IV and others are buried is also a Royal Peculiar)
It is believed that HRH has tried as far as he sees fit, but it must be remembered that all Royal patronage is subject to the Queens permission.
In other words, he treads a fine line and we remain very grateful to him for what appears to a lifelong genuine interest.
Prince Charles may have a different take on this, as and when...........  

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 2:10
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey

 

Arthur wrote:
>
> Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
> 'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.
>
> The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite make out the point of your post, Arthur. If you're saying that the queen could grant permission to examine the bones in the urn, you're correct as far as I know. The problem is that she hasn't done so and apparently has no intention of doing so.

I had hopes that her cousin, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (whose name fits nicely with his role as patron of the Richard III Society) would exercise whatever influence he has with her and attempt to persuade her that it's high time those bones were scientifically and objectively examined, but evidently he hasn't done so. He hasn't even, as far as I know, commented on the finding of his namesake's skeleton. Very disappointing, at least to me.

Carol

I don't know...  It may be as simple as him thinking he has more chance of influencing people behind the scenes, the less he says in public.  I certainly don't doubt his commitment.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 12:50
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey


 
That's fair enough but I'm surprised he hasn't even made a single comment about Richard being found.    As Patron I would have expected him to at least say "jolly fascinating, what?"
 
Liz

From: RONALD COOKSLEY greyfox.cooksley@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 8:37
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey

 
Carol,
I understand your disappointment that having Royal patronage has not enabled the re-examination of the bones or indeed, anything else within the Queen's remit.  (Windsor where Edward IV and others are buried is also a Royal Peculiar)
It is believed that HRH has tried as far as he sees fit, but it must be remembered that all Royal patronage is subject to the Queens permission.
In other words, he treads a fine line and we remain very grateful to him for what appears to a lifelong genuine interest.
Prince Charles may have a different take on this, as and when...........  

________________________________
From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 2:10
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey

 

Arthur wrote:
>
> Having recently watched the T.V. documentary about 'Westminster Abbey' it was made CLEAR that the Abbey was a 
> 'Royal Peculiar' which I understand means it is not within the Diocese of a Bishop or [as I understand it] an Archbishop.
>
> The Abbey is, as I understand, ultimately under the direct administration of the Sovereign. [snip]

Carol responds:

I can't quite make out the point of your post, Arthur. If you're saying that the queen could grant permission to examine the bones in the urn, you're correct as far as I know. The problem is that she hasn't done so and apparently has no intention of doing so.

I had hopes that her cousin, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (whose name fits nicely with his role as patron of the Richard III Society) would exercise whatever influence he has with her and attempt to persuade her that it's high time those bones were scientifically and objectively examined, but evidently he hasn't done so. He hasn't even, as far as I know, commented on the finding of his namesake's skeleton. Very disappointing, at least to me.

Carol

Under a tight reign, not a "tight right".  I wonder what I write sometimes!

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 12:22
Subject: Re: Re: Forum


 
I think what's been happening is to some extent inevitable given the explosion of interest in all things Richard over the last six months.  A small and very self-contained group has suddenly got larger and busier, which can be a bit of a culture shock.  Furthermore, the design of the forum makes following discussions problematic given the increasing post count, and effective moderation is rendered equally difficult.

There are no quick and simple answers to the above (a wholesale revamp didn't particularly meet with much favour when it was suggested by someone a little while ago), so there's little anyone can do except keep frustrations under a tight right - and, I would have thought, email the moderator directly if you're feeling particularly aggrieved and not the person who has offended you.

One thing that doesn't help is any hint of the "old guard" (I've seen that phrase used once or twice and, intentionally or not, it carries an implicit value judgement) resenting the influx of new people.  Length of time on a forum is irrelevant (I say that as someone who joined in 2008), and new members, with all their questions, are to be celebrated as they are what will keep the group alive.  Yes, respect must be shown to some very knowledgeable opinion on here.  But respect is a two-way process that hasn't always been as evident as it should be and I know of at least a couple of people who've found the place so unwelcoming that they no longer visit.

One last thing: it really shouldn't matter if someone's pro or anti Richard.  I'm pro, but I'd be delighted if, say, Alison Weir were to join.  She might learn some real history, for a start...

Jonathan

From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Forum


> I think what's been happening is to some extent inevitable given the
> explosion of interest in all things Richard over the last six months. A
> small and very self-contained group has suddenly got larger and busier,
> which can be a bit of a culture shock.

Also, everybody had made up their minds about how they personally saw
Richard - physically I mean - or what they thought had happened to his body,
or how he had been killed, and if that turned out to be markedly different
from what his bones reveal then it requires an emergency re-think which can
be quite stressful, and is another kind of shock. And finding his bones at
all is stressful, like suddenly seeing the dead body of your favourite
cousin, so again it makes people feel twitchy and disturbed.

Arthur wrote:
>
> I agree, the Leicester findings are only part of the exercise, [Though a MAJOR part.] Truth in our history is VITAL!

Carol responds:

Exactly. Finding the truth about Richard and discarding the myths if they're found invalid is the whole purpose of the Richard III Society. But PLEASE can I get YOU to STOP using CAPITAL letters for EMPHASIS? See how ANNOYING it is?

THANKS, I mean thanks,
Carol

Thanks for the update on 'the princes'. Perhaps someone might be spurred on now to do more research on them.
Olga

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> The bones were discovered in the 17th century during building work at The Tower.   They were discarded on a rubbish tip for a while before someone thought they might be the bones of the princes.  They were collected, along with some animal bones, and a rusty nail and put in an urn where you can see them now.
>
> In the 1930s, the bones were examined.  Unfortunately, the people who examined them STARTED with the idea they were the princes and so worked backwards, rather than forwards.  They dutifully concluded they were indeed the princes.  Yet, they didn't have the techniques available to science today and a re-examination of the bones has been requested a couple of times in the last twenty years or so, but the requests have all been refused.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: olgalockley <olgalockley@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
> Olga
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more.  It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things.  It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago.  It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians.  
> >
> > One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line.  There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line.  It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
> >
> > I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
> >
> > Pamela
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > : liz williams wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.  As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.  I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight). 
> >  
> > As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think)  made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.   There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
> >  
> > I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here. 
> >  
> > Liz
> >
> > From: pansydobersby >
> >
> > As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
> >
> > I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

As a very newbie may I make a comment? I innocently gave as my email an address that I only keep for doing my own family history. I was overwhelmed and had to change it smartish! I now catch-up on the Forum but apart from the sheer volume may I make a small criticism? There seems to be a small core of members whose posts consist of "how many angels can stand on the head of a pin" variety. Ie: arguments (that appear to me to be rather irrelevant) regarding that which we do not know and most likely never will whereas I'm sure most of us want facts and conversation thereon.
Olga.

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Col I do so agree with you. I'm not an old timer, I'm a new timer I only joined in November but immediately it became clear that you can be a bit of an irritant if you raise a question that's been discussed before - even though you may see it from a different angle. And I don't blame the others who think here we go again. The forum format clearly needs a re-vamp.
>
> I'd like to make it clear I'm not taking time out because of newcomers; I was one very recently, but the influx of 300 emails when you take one day out is daunting, and you know that people are getting irritable wading through them all and this comes out in their posts.
>
> I've always supported and defended some 'old timers', as they well know, but sometimes they speak as though they are the only authority because they have studied everything, quote from the sources and know everything. But sources are open to interpretation and only the most daring professor would quote their own opinion as fact. And sometimes you can be so drowned in the sources that you can't push your head above water and be receptive to new ideas.
>
> I shall still read the posts here (how I shall miss the banter) and perhaps come back when things have calmed a bit.
>
> Hilary
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I think the format of this forum makes it incredibly difficult for newcomers to negotiate the threads and also to work out "how to behave". Old-timers might resent newbies asking questions which are easily answered if they hunted about on the RIII website but they're still legitimate questions. This is a forum for the Society members, not just for experts. For years surely the Society has been wanting more interest, more members (we are down at least 2000 since I joined despite the age of the internet), more activity - well, now it's here and it's not terribly easy negotiating a way through lots of new questions, theories, suppositions and the like. A forum which had a Richard 101 section and "Hints for Posting" and easily accesible sub-forums about certain areas of study/questions, would be more open to managing the confusing threads and name-changing of thread titles. Sniping and rudeness occurs all over in forums, but it shouldn't put people off when this is one of the very few places to talk RIII discussion.
> >
> > I know lots of regular users here like this format, so fair enough and it doesn't have to change but it's terribly sad that such knowledgeable folk feel they need to leave. The forum needs the knowledgeable folk to help with informed discussion!
> >
> > Col
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope that not too many of the old timers leave. The only difference now is the sheer volume - this month is 10x a good month up to last summer and should settle down eventually.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: liz williams
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Forum
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume. As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped. I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).
> > >
> > > As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that. There have been one or two occasions in the past when there have been disagreements but it seems very civil to me.
> > >
> > > I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: pansydobersby >
> > >
> > > As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
> > >
> > > I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

You need to read Carson ("The Maligned King") - she has devoted a chapter or two to them and has come to the same conclusion as I have.
----- Original Message -----
From: olgalockley
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Bones in Westminster Abbey



Thanks for the update on 'the princes'. Perhaps someone might be spurred on now to do more research on them.
Olga

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The bones were discovered in the 17th century during building work at The Tower. Â They were discarded on a rubbish tip for a while before someone thought they might be the bones of the princes. Â They were collected, along with some animal bones, and a rusty nail and put in an urn where you can see them now.
>
> In the 1930s, the bones were examined. Â Unfortunately, the people who examined them STARTED with the idea they were the princes and so worked backwards, rather than forwards. Â They dutifully concluded they were indeed the princes. Â Yet, they didn't have the techniques available to science today and a re-examination of the bones has been requested a couple of times in the last twenty years or so, but the requests have all been refused.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: olgalockley wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Pamela, As you say many new members will be asking 'old' questions. One of which I should like answers to is - regarding the 'princes in the tower'. Years ago I read that two bodies had been found under steps in the tower. Is that true, and if so - where are they now, what tests (if any) were done on them, and how does the matter stand at the moment?
> Olga
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > The discovery of Richard's body has sparked off tremendous interest and as a result there have been many new members on this forum, all eager to find out more. Ã, It is only to be expected that they will have many questions and be keen to explore a whole range of new things. Ã, It is inevitable that they will ask questions which we older Ricardians dealt with years ago. Ã, It is important that we don't drive away potential new Ricardians. Ã,Â
> >
> > One thing which would be helpful - if threads drift (which is inevitable) can posters please change the subject line. Ã, There was a thread entitled something about an important article which meandered down several byways and ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the subject line. Ã, It is very time wasting having to open every post only to find that 90% are about something else entirely.
> >
> > I do hope our experienced posters don't leave, it would be such a loss to this forum and may also put off our newer members from asking questions or querying what someone has posted.
> >
> > Pamela
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > : liz williams wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ã,Â
> > Well I too am wondering that, unless it's just the volume.Ã, As someone who had 324 unread e mails relating to Richard on Friday, I understand if people are swamped.Ã, I read the topics I was interested in and junked the rest (I'm not for example really interested in Richard's eyesight).Ã,Â
> > Ã,Â
> > As for civility, I know someone (Paul I think) Ã, made a comment about sniping but I must have missed that.Ã, Ã, There have been one or two occasions in the past whenÃ, there have been disagreements butÃ, it seems very civil to me.
> > Ã,Â
> > I'm really sorry if the more knowlegeable people are leaving here.Ã,Â
> > Ã,Â
> > Liz
> >
> > From: pansydobersby >
> >
> > As a new member it isn't really my place to say anything, but I'm saddened and frankly puzzled by all these people leaving. There's very little in the way of off-topic chit-chat here and the discussions are remarkably civil. Newbies may ask annoying questions, but that's the nature of any discussion forum on the internet. There's a lot of speculation, but that surely comes with the territory?
> >
> > I, for one, would be grateful to be told what exactly it is that newbies are doing wrong to make this place intolerable for old members. It would be good to be given a chance to adjust one's behaviour accordingly - but without some helpful hints, that isn't possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>