[split] RCTV

just looked back at this and it seems the gang warfare effect that lives on this forum reared its ugly head at poor rctv. Very harsh treatment of the fellow i think,

(02-01-2011 13:55 )vostok 1 Wrote:  No. However the poster in question has continually brought up that they run a channel, that they have worked for Ofcom, that anyone else's viewpoint has less validity because of their employment history.

It kind of does though, If we was talking about something like building regs, who's posts would be more valid, The person that has worked in the building trade, dealing with the regs on a regular basis or the person whose building experience doesn't go past building sand castles on Scarborough beach.

(02-01-2011 15:42 )chrislatimer Wrote:  it seems the gang warfare effect that lives on this forum reared its ugly head at poor rctv. Very harsh treatment of the fellow i think,

(02-01-2011 15:46 )gazfc Wrote:  If we was talking about something like building regs, who's posts would be more valid, The person that has worked in the building trade, dealing with the regs on a regular basis or the person whose building experience doesn't go past building sand castles on Scarborough beach.

Previous 'experience' does not automatically mean knowledge......have you never watched Rogue Traders?

(02-01-2011 18:09 )Sooky™ Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 15:42 )chrislatimer Wrote:  it seems the gang warfare effect that lives on this forum reared its ugly head at poor rctv. Very harsh treatment of the fellow i think,

copying me, how stylish they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thank you.

(02-01-2011 18:14 )chrislatimer Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 18:09 )Sooky™ Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 15:42 )chrislatimer Wrote:  it seems the gang warfare effect that lives on this forum reared its ugly head at poor rctv. Very harsh treatment of the fellow i think,

copying me, how stylish they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thank you.

I actually posted that months ago so you must have copied me if you are going to pick bones......find it funny someone who has never had an original thought of their own would call somebody else up on "copying them".

Nice to see you not giving up on your hobby of hijacking threads don't let the dream die "dude" just "chillax" and so on.....

(02-01-2011 15:46 )gazfc Wrote:  It kind of does though, If we was talking about something like building regs, who's posts would be more valid, The person that has worked in the building trade, dealing with the regs on a regular basis or the person whose building experience doesn't go past building sand castles on Scarborough beach.

Nice analogy.
Here it is, analogy free, edited to reflect the issue that sparked the so called "gang warfare":

"If we was talking about something like Ofcom, who's posts would be more valid, The person that has worked for Ofcom, dealing with the regs on a regular basis or the person whose regulatory experience doesn't go past wanking over the babeshows"

As you said before:

(01-01-2011 21:08 )gazfc Wrote:  Do we all need to leave some kind of cv in order to post??

No. However when someone who claims to have detailed, inside, first hand knowledge from working in the "biz" and working with Ofcom makes posts like this (On why they believe pin protection is not sufficient protection):

(29-12-2010 07:57 )RCTV Wrote:  because PINs can be and are guessed and if you actually read the post properly, I said that it is a problem they may find as seen it in other countries used for reasons for not putting it in.

then because of their "experience", their view can be considered more valid, hence your "building regs analogy. And that is why people have questioned RCTV's "experience", because they continue to mention their claims to have detailed, inside, first hand knowledge from working in the "biz" and working with Ofcom.

If I can borrow your building regs analogy, say for instance some one on newbuild.forum.com says "you can knock up a 24 floor tower block in your back garden, no problem. I run a building firm and I used to work for the planning/regs department"... Would it be wrong for people to question the validity of that persons employment? As this is what happened with RCTV... Hence your question:"Do we all need to leave some kind of cv in order to post??"

And my reply:

"No. However the poster in question has continually brought up that they run a channel, that they have worked for Ofcom, that anyone else's viewpoint has less validity because of their employment history.

It was RCTV who made the point of relying on a forum jigsaw cv that they posted in various threads, to dismiss "outsiders" opinions and points of discussion."

(03-01-2011 01:24 )tsurugi Wrote:  I actually posted that months ago so you must have copied me if you are going to pick bones......find it funny someone who has never had an original thought of their own would call somebody else up on "copying them".

Nice to see you not giving up on your hobby of hijacking threads don't let the dream die "dude" just "chillax" and so on.....

nice to see you and ya pal sooky continuing these little digs at me, funny that , thought you and she would have better things to do .

guess not.

Fantastic! Finally, a thread about building!!

(02-01-2011 18:09 )Sooky™ Wrote:  Previous 'experience' does not automatically mean knowledge......have you never watched Rogue Traders?

I've been a rogue trader for nearly 15 years, and I can categorically state that we do have knowledge. In fact many of us have more knowledge than ordinary traders. Before you can botch a job at the kind of sheer staggeringly-incompetent level that's worth bothering to televise, you have to learn how to do it properly, then do the exact opposite. Only by knowing how to do it right can you be absolutely sure you're doing it completely and utterly wrong. It takes a great deal of skill, forethought and ingenuity to balls up a job to the exacting and highly demanding standards of the Rogue Traders research department.

Other specialist knowledge a rogue trader might have would include:

How to charge three times over the odds for work you haven't finished.
How to charge double the going rate for work you haven't started and don't intend to.
How to break the unbreakable.
How to lay a floor which will collapse within 24 hours, without falling through it in the process.
How to get into a van whilst holding one hand over the lens of a TV camera and trying to get the other hand out of a can of turps.
How to make yourself a drink when you've wrecked the plumbing.
How to land on a bed when falling through a bedroom ceiling.
How to survive a gas explosion.
Advanced fly-tipping.
Where to get substandard materials.
How to do jobs which normally take 10 to 15 costly precision tools and three hours, with a single blow of a hammer.

Sorry to intrude by the way. I just feel that us rogue traders have for long been undervalued and I was compelled to redress the balance.

Can you play the piano to the exacting standards of Les Dawson too?

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(03-01-2011 02:59 )chrislatimer Wrote:  

(03-01-2011 01:24 )tsurugi Wrote:  I actually posted that months ago so you must have copied me if you are going to pick bones......find it funny someone who has never had an original thought of their own would call somebody else up on "copying them".

Nice to see you not giving up on your hobby of hijacking threads don't let the dream die "dude" just "chillax" and so on.....

nice to see you and ya pal sooky continuing these little digs at me, funny that , thought you and she would have better things to do .

guess not.

you see its like this, when you go about pissing people off then claim your badly done to (chatbox mod bias), decide to quit the forum because you were getting back some of what you gave, while doing so left the vaguest of apologies ( i apologies to all the members who i may have offended).
then to come back and pretty much start where you left off... you can pretty much assume that they will 2...

this isn't a dig, its pointing out the obvious which you seem to have missed