!RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Changes to the Forum

2017-03-16 15:33:16

Pamela Bain

I wondered if they felt threatened by the questions, possible conjectures and amazing research from so many.

That is tactless of me, but I thought the same thing about Facebook, and Twitter with 140 characters!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:47 AM
To:
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: !RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Changes to the Forum

2017-03-17 02:11:07

Neil Trump

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 15:32, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I wondered if they felt threatened by the questions, possible conjectures and amazing research from so many.

That is tactless of me, but I thought the same thing about Facebook, and Twitter with 140 characters!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:47 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum

Re: !RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Changes to the Forum

2017-03-17 02:20:34

Pamela Bain

GREAT point....... I had not even considered that. But, just from the standpoint of wonderful and well researched information, as well as conjecture based on known facts, the content is wonderful.
On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:11 PM, Neil Trump neil.trump@... [] <> wrote:

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 15:32, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I wondered if they felt threatened by the questions, possible conjectures and amazing research from so many.

That is tactless of me, but I thought the same thing about Facebook, and Twitter with 140 characters!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:47 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum

Re: !RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Changes to the Forum

2017-03-17 15:24:03

Gilda Elise

Going by the Message History on the group's page (under the about link,) it's certainly not true that there are less messages.
Gilda

On Mar 16, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Neil Trump neil.trump@... [] <> wrote:

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 15:32, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I wondered if they felt threatened by the questions, possible conjectures and amazing research from so many.

That is tactless of me, but I thought the same thing about Facebook, and Twitter with 140 characters!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:47 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Changes to the Forum

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.