Changes to the Forum
Changes to the Forum
2017-03-14 21:12:06
The original decision was made by the Executive Committee but it has been decided now that, pending further discussion, the recently reported changes to the Society Forum, due to take effect on the 1st April, will be suspended and a further announcement made after the EC has met again.
Phil Stone
Chairman
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 12:15:14
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.Eileen
Fingers crossed..time will tell.Eileen
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 13:30:12
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 14:53:06
Hi, Eileen and Pamela
Yes, I'm feeling much better now thanks to the latest communications from the Chairman.
I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used. Twitter and Facebook are OK in their place for things like sharing photos and advising of upcoming events but for in-depth discussion, nothing can take the place of a discussion group with a number of experts in the field participating in vigorous discussions!
So I'm cautiously optimistic that things will be worked out for the best for all concerned! =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 10:30 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Yes, I'm feeling much better now thanks to the latest communications from the Chairman.
I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used. Twitter and Facebook are OK in their place for things like sharing photos and advising of upcoming events but for in-depth discussion, nothing can take the place of a discussion group with a number of experts in the field participating in vigorous discussions!
So I'm cautiously optimistic that things will be worked out for the best for all concerned! =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 10:30 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 15:35:50
Yes, like Eileen I really didn't like the tone of the original email but I am now more optimistic. I hope they will conclude we're not heretics!
Something a little more cheerful. On the day it arrived work took me to a place called Beaumanor Hall in Leics, near Melton Mowbray. I'd never heard of it but the manor belonged to the Despensers, the Digbys and the Herricks- including he who was mayor of Leicester and reputedly had Richard's gravestone in his garden. The current house is Victorian and in the hands of the County Council. Upstairs is the 'King Richard Room' which has his arms and motto in the window very grand. Apparently it is called that because until fairly recently it housed the famous bed in which legend has it that he slept the night before leaving for Bosworth. Leicestershire in general loves King Richard, and not just to milk tourism (which I understand is going very well). H
From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017, 14:53
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Hi, Eileen and Pamela
Yes, I'm feeling much better now thanks to the latest communications from the Chairman.
I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used. Twitter and Facebook are OK in their place for things like sharing photos and advising of upcoming events but for in-depth discussion, nothing can take the place of a discussion group with a number of experts in the field participating in vigorous discussions!
So I'm cautiously optimistic that things will be worked out for the best for all concerned! =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 10:30 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Something a little more cheerful. On the day it arrived work took me to a place called Beaumanor Hall in Leics, near Melton Mowbray. I'd never heard of it but the manor belonged to the Despensers, the Digbys and the Herricks- including he who was mayor of Leicester and reputedly had Richard's gravestone in his garden. The current house is Victorian and in the hands of the County Council. Upstairs is the 'King Richard Room' which has his arms and motto in the window very grand. Apparently it is called that because until fairly recently it housed the famous bed in which legend has it that he slept the night before leaving for Bosworth. Leicestershire in general loves King Richard, and not just to milk tourism (which I understand is going very well). H
From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017, 14:53
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Hi, Eileen and Pamela
Yes, I'm feeling much better now thanks to the latest communications from the Chairman.
I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used. Twitter and Facebook are OK in their place for things like sharing photos and advising of upcoming events but for in-depth discussion, nothing can take the place of a discussion group with a number of experts in the field participating in vigorous discussions!
So I'm cautiously optimistic that things will be worked out for the best for all concerned! =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 10:30 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 15:54:30
Yes..we're not heretics.we are very, very nice people..whats not to like?
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 21:01:43
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 21:09:55
Good point! I looked at it yesterday - sad ! H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, March 16, 2017, 9:01 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 21:15:15
Indeed! :) :)
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, March 16, 2017, 3:54 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Yes..we're not heretics.we are very, very nice people..whats not to like?
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 21:34:58
Thanks, Carol! You may very well be right. And, yes, it is sad. But this Forum is anything but moribund!!
I love it! And btw I loved your tips for my trip to London at Christmas. I managed to squeeze in a number of Ricardian sites in addition to the trip to Fotheringhay. (But not St. Ethelreadaýs (sp??) unfortunately.)
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: justcarol67@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 6:01 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Johanne wrote:
"Iým not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasnýt being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
I love it! And btw I loved your tips for my trip to London at Christmas. I managed to squeeze in a number of Ricardian sites in addition to the trip to Fotheringhay. (But not St. Ethelreadaýs (sp??) unfortunately.)
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: justcarol67@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 16, 2017 6:01 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Johanne wrote:
"Iým not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasnýt being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-16 23:33:52
I hope so as well
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 13:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 13:30, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:
Wonderful news&&&..fingers crossed here.
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Changes to the Forum
Dr Phil Stone has kindly replied to my email. He writes he is attempting to get to the bottom of it. My initial rage has now somewhat dissipated - which was more at the tone of the message posted on here - and I have asked him to please do not fix what ain't broken.
Fingers crossed..time will tell.
Eileen
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 01:39:10
Johanne write:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responded:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Marie suggests:
Or fake news spread by a fan of Twitter?
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 04:47:04
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
I believe it is a play on numbers here.The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info, which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 09:39:29
Hi, Neil
Yes, thank you for that! At least it makes some sense. As you note, if you look at the message traffic over a longer period than that since September 2012, when the discovery of Richard's remains was announced (I remember very well, because it was on my birthday! = ), the traffic is more back to historic levels.
It was Mark Twain who said, There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Neil Trump neil.trump@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 17, 2017 1:47 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...> [] <<mailto:>> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Yes, thank you for that! At least it makes some sense. As you note, if you look at the message traffic over a longer period than that since September 2012, when the discovery of Richard's remains was announced (I remember very well, because it was on my birthday! = ), the traffic is more back to historic levels.
It was Mark Twain who said, There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Neil Trump neil.trump@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 17, 2017 1:47 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...> [] <<mailto:>> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 09:50:11
But if, presumably, it costs the Society nothing for the Forum to keep up and running what harm is there for them to keep it it going? I don't get it!
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 10:12:43
Hi Neil I think this is the nub. The Forum is not a vanity organisation measured in likes such as Facebook. Look at any forum and you'll find it consists of about a dozen regular contributors with others who drop by occasionally and some who just enjoy reading. I remember reading this one for months before plucking up the courage to join. But I can imagine some marketing organisation has been looking at the Society and made this recommendation based on numbers.
FWIT I wouldn't want to go back to the heady days of a thousand posts, it ran us all ragged and encouraged the trolls. It was in the main about the controversy over the burial site and that is of course now resolved. I'm sure you also remember it well :) I was looking at the constitution of the Society yesterday and I reckon we more than fulfil its aims. In fact it's rather a shame that members of the Committee remain so aloof. Their contribution would be more than welcomed. We are after all a very friendly bunch who can also take criticism when we get things wrong. And that says a lot. Hilary
From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2017, 9:39
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Hi, Neil
Yes, thank you for that! At least it makes some sense. As you note, if you look at the message traffic over a longer period than that since September 2012, when the discovery of Richard's remains was announced (I remember very well, because it was on my birthday! = ), the traffic is more back to historic levels.
It was Mark Twain who said, There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Neil Trump neil.trump@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 17, 2017 1:47 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...> [] <<mailto:>> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
FWIT I wouldn't want to go back to the heady days of a thousand posts, it ran us all ragged and encouraged the trolls. It was in the main about the controversy over the burial site and that is of course now resolved. I'm sure you also remember it well :) I was looking at the constitution of the Society yesterday and I reckon we more than fulfil its aims. In fact it's rather a shame that members of the Committee remain so aloof. Their contribution would be more than welcomed. We are after all a very friendly bunch who can also take criticism when we get things wrong. And that says a lot. Hilary
From: "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 17 March 2017, 9:39
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
Hi, Neil
Yes, thank you for that! At least it makes some sense. As you note, if you look at the message traffic over a longer period than that since September 2012, when the discovery of Richard's remains was announced (I remember very well, because it was on my birthday! = ), the traffic is more back to historic levels.
It was Mark Twain who said, There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. =
Johanne
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
From: Neil Trump neil.trump@... []<mailto:>
Sent: March 17, 2017 1:47 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Mar 2017, at 21:01, justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...> [] <<mailto:>> wrote:
Johanne wrote:
"I'm not trying to stir up the pot again, but I would like to know how the Society got the idea that this Forum wasn't being used."
Carol responds:
Possibly, they had us confused with the American Richard III forum at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info,<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/richard3/info> which appears to be as dead as a door nail.
Carol
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-17 18:11:38
Hilary, I totally agree with you!
Eva
Eva
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-18 23:19:04
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-19 11:56:18
Hi Neil I would suggest you ask the Exec Com to have a look at the content of some of these emails during the boom period. They will find that they are about the York/Leicester controversy (quite a few Yorkshire posters then), how to book hotels in Leicester and how to travel to Ricardian sites in the UK (nothing wrong with the latter but it did boost numbers). Then there were some who wanted to discuss a sort of fantasy Richard and others who were playing a Henry Tudor Society card. There was one particular poster who used to write tens of posts a day - I'm sure you'll remember that :) :) Sample our content now and you'll get Margaret Beaufort (everyone gets a fair hearing), De Velville, cannons at Bosworth - in other words serious stuff but often discussed in a light-hearted way. That of course doesn't rule out lighter things like television programmes, books and Michael Hicks!:) I do think they should dip in, though beware they might not be flattered by what we say about this latest controversy.
Kind Regards H
From: "Neil Trump neil.trump@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017, 23:19
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
Kind Regards H
From: "Neil Trump neil.trump@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017, 23:19
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-19 12:08:51
Good post Hilary..good points.
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-19 14:18:01
Hi Hilary,
When I set the Forum 17 years ago I tried on many occasions at committee meetings to get Phil, the Hammonds etc to subscribe so that they could be inclusive and be seen by the membership, for whatever reasons they decided not to. As they say you can take a horse to the water, but..............
Richards discovery was a period of high traffic and was a busy time, I remember it reasonably well still. Being a moderator can be a thankless task as you feel like being stuck in the middle and yes some discussions with some people did take place and decisions made. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
My understanding is that the Facebook platform had far a rougher ride than the Forum and caused a lot of bad feeling on various sides.
I guess it wasn't helped by certain topical areas being out of the Society's control and it just had to unfortunately sit and watch it unfold.
Regards,
Neil
When I set the Forum 17 years ago I tried on many occasions at committee meetings to get Phil, the Hammonds etc to subscribe so that they could be inclusive and be seen by the membership, for whatever reasons they decided not to. As they say you can take a horse to the water, but..............
Richards discovery was a period of high traffic and was a busy time, I remember it reasonably well still. Being a moderator can be a thankless task as you feel like being stuck in the middle and yes some discussions with some people did take place and decisions made. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
My understanding is that the Facebook platform had far a rougher ride than the Forum and caused a lot of bad feeling on various sides.
I guess it wasn't helped by certain topical areas being out of the Society's control and it just had to unfortunately sit and watch it unfold.
Regards,
Neil
Re: Changes to the Forum
2017-03-19 14:23:09
Hi Hilary,
When I set the Forum 17 years ago I tried on many occasions at committee meetings to get Phil, the Hammonds etc to subscribe so that they could be inclusive and be seen by the membership, for whatever reasons they decided not to. As they say you can take a horse to the water, but..............
Richards discovery was a period of high traffic and was a busy time, I remember it reasonably well still. Being a moderator can be a thankless task as you feel like being stuck in the middle and yes some discussions with some people did take place and decisions made. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
My understanding is that the Facebook platform had far a rougher ride than the Forum and caused a lot of bad feeling on various sides.
I guess it wasn't helped by certain topical areas being out of the Society's control and it just had to unfortunately sit and watch it unfold.
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 19 Mar 2017, at 10:05, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
When I set the Forum 17 years ago I tried on many occasions at committee meetings to get Phil, the Hammonds etc to subscribe so that they could be inclusive and be seen by the membership, for whatever reasons they decided not to. As they say you can take a horse to the water, but..............
Richards discovery was a period of high traffic and was a busy time, I remember it reasonably well still. Being a moderator can be a thankless task as you feel like being stuck in the middle and yes some discussions with some people did take place and decisions made. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.
My understanding is that the Facebook platform had far a rougher ride than the Forum and caused a lot of bad feeling on various sides.
I guess it wasn't helped by certain topical areas being out of the Society's control and it just had to unfortunately sit and watch it unfold.
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
On 19 Mar 2017, at 10:05, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Neil I would suggest you ask the Exec Com to have a look at the content of some of these emails during the boom period. They will find that they are about the York/Leicester controversy (quite a few Yorkshire posters then), how to book hotels in Leicester and how to travel to Ricardian sites in the UK (nothing wrong with the latter but it did boost numbers). Then there were some who wanted to discuss a sort of fantasy Richard and others who were playing a Henry Tudor Society card. There was one particular poster who used to write tens of posts a day - I'm sure you'll remember that :) :) Sample our content now and you'll get Margaret Beaufort (everyone gets a fair hearing), De Velville, cannons at Bosworth - in other words serious stuff
but often discussed in a light-hearted way. That of course doesn't rule out lighter things like television programmes, books and Michael Hicks!:) I do think they should dip in, though beware they might not be flattered by what we say about this latest controversy.
Kind Regards H
From: "Neil Trump neil.trump@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017, 23:19
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum
To all:
I believe it is a play on numbers here.
The perception is that numbers of posts have declined, but on what basis?
By this I mean that when Richard was discovered in Leicester the number of posts escalated into the thousands each month for quite some time and when Richard was re-interred this formed a closure on an exciting time for everyone.
So in reality postings returned to levels that were in line prior to Richards discovery.
As people know you can massage figures to whatever you wish them to be to prove a point, trouble is there are other people that can see through these claims and bring them back to reality
Regards,
Neil
Sent from my iPad
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.