Yellow card

[Mike.C]

Keith

Rubbish, Moderators (what ever their thoughts or feelings on the matter )if they are doing their job properly should be totally impartial and in my view sawdustalley words were not impartial.

Although i am sure that Noely and Neil will make great moderators. I think that adding 2 more moderators to the forum at that particular that was stupid and did not help. All bilzee knew was that some members who did not have the guts to say anything publicly were stabbing him in the back by pm, so what was he to think, it looked like they were being rewarded.

Mike.C

 

[Alf]

Billzee,

Enough already. :roll: A polite request was made by me two? three? times to everybody to just leave the topic alone, and you chose to ignore it. I understand you feel passionately about the subject, but casting aspertions about how someone carries out their job simply isn't acceptable. Especially when there is absolutely nothing to back up your claims. I'm afraid I also feel an apology isn't worth much if couched in such grudging and unapologetic tones. In an attempt to get you to realise that this is unacceptable, and polite requests having failed, you've been given a warning. No more, no less. If you hadn't told everyone yourself, no-one else on this forum would even have known you had been warned, and as far as I'm concerned you could have gone on as if nothing had happened and we could all have exercised that underrated policy of "forgive and forget". You still can do that, in my opinion, just with the courtesy button to "on", please.

Mike, I think SDA's comment was unwise, yes. I hope he'll apologise. I also agree that the timing of the addition of two further moderators is unfortunate, but I've been pretty much doing this on my tod and could do with the help to be honest. How ever many mods there are won't make a shred of difference to the vast majority of the contributors here, except to fix codes in their posts and answer queries that much quicker, but it should discourage anyone considering making trouble on this forum "while the cat's away". And that must be a Good Thing, I'm sure you'll agree.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

At the risk of stirring it all up again, I would like to put the matter straight.

Good morning Andy.

I thought the matter was fairly straight but I have no objection to hearing or seeing you version again but I would like to correct some assumptions that you seem to have made and they are I might add the nub of the problem and to my mind a misunderstanding if indeed thats what it is.

I intend to clear up this possible misuderstanding once and for all.

I have never accused you personally of having a lack of integrity regarding the tool tests. In fact I have gone out of my way to say that within your own admitted restraints I am sure the tests are fair.

You said

As I see it, the problem is based on opinions. We have to tread a fine line in keeping readers, publishers and advertisers happy, so with your request

You see, this means that your mag GWW has more than one master and from your own mouth both in this quote and others you admit that you have other considerations other than just the reader and potentially the 'tool buyer'.

Now, how many times does this point need to be illustrated.?

It doesn't mean to say that your individual testing of any particular tool is flawed or biased.

As I have said many times that is not an issue. Your personal integrity is not being questioned regarding the actual test results that you oversee.

Are we clear here??

What it does mean is that the overall independence of any unit or in this case magazine cannot be seen to be absolute when they have to consider various sometimes possibly conflicting interests.

No one on this forum has ever challenged this aspect of what I am saying because you see its an inalienable truth, so what we get in fact is you misunderstanding ( either deliberately or not, I don't know tbf) my comment to mean you are personally corrupt or biased and in so doing clouding the real issue deliberately or otherwise. I'll let others make up their own minds on that

Now if this a genuine misunderstanding I will accept the situation but let there be no misunderstanding anymore.


Now if we continue from here then my point regarding comparative tool testing now comes into play.

If GWW test single and disimilar units ( like the latest bandsaw test) where no two pieces of equipment can be compared ) then the tests are of limited value to us the readers and potential tool buyers.

Now if all tests were in fact comparative in nature there would be both winners and losers.

It is this scenario that would be most helpful to many readers but of course less helpful to GWW as it would naturally alienate any advertisers who came out poorly in any such tests.

The real test for me would be a proper comparative test where one of the tool/machines was measurably poorer yet was one of your advertisers.

Its really both a very simple and basic concept.

I hope things are much clearer now

 

[Charley]

I am going to close this thread. I feel everyone’s had their say and it’s not going anywhere.

If you’re not happy with this decision please do everyone a favour and PM me, don’t bring it up in a public forum.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Alf, sorry I have just seen your post

I was quite happy to leave it alone, its others who have deigned to keep it going. I have just anjswered them.,

I notice you have not asked andy king to stop posting, why only me. I have said nothing unreasonable here.

There definitely sems to be a bias against open and honest debate I wonder why.

Its very worrying.