Time to go from Shotsweb, this time forever

[Cph.shots]

I have never had a problem with Richard, comes across as a very helpfull and intelegent man,and i have to say ,never really disagreed with anything he had to say. but, i think the problem with what has happened is,the way he has told everybody in 500 words plus( havent counted them, )when a simple sentance would have done. just my opinion of course !!

....but surely we can all just choose not to read every post?
The way I see it, he was just trying to clarify things and correct some misinformation.
It probably says more about our attention spans if we can't live with a message that is over 50 odd words.
Meanwhile there is a thread that seems to be about biscuits and breakfast cereals ('ve chosen not to read every post) and that doesn't seem to bother anyone at all, there again, they do seem to be pretty short posts.

[tonygodfrey]

Have Jim and Richard actually left, or have they just stopped posting for the time being.
Is Alan B continuing posting? I do hope so.

That's the thing, Dr. Jim and Richard announced they were leaving but others just stop posting and we don't get to know why.
Personally, I think that a couple of remarks on this page alone are harsh but will be "just my opinion".
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I wonder if some of the posters above, would use the same tone if talking to someone face to face?

This is the key point. Without the non-verbal cues and ability to sense someone's reaction visually it's easy to get unnecessarily aggressive and very rude on here. We've seen at fans forums time and time again that in person such ways of talking are rarely followed through. (And would likely be quickly shouted down by the majority.)

[Old Bob]

Most”parochial” football websites are full of playground bitchiness and condescending comment, and Shotsweb is no different. It’s the patronising tone that gets up my nose, but I have the skin of a rhinoceros, so no big deal. General websites can be interesting, news of opponents transfers, problems, etc..; more analytical and less condemnatory.
Not dull, though, eh, reality soap opera..

Just a thought, Karl, but isn't "patronising" in the eye of the beholder? What is patronising to person X may not be patronising to person Y. It is relative to what you already know, which obviously varies from person to person. If someone lectures me on the basics of a subject that I know well, that I may even have studied deeply, and does so knowing what I know, that is patronising. But the same person explaining the basics of a subject to someone untutored in that subject and keen to learn, that is not patronising but helpful.

I speak as someone who has frequently been accused of being patronising on here

And I must say that I never found Richard Petty patronising, or had the impression that I was being "talked at" rather than with. Not at all.

[Peter macdonald]

Most”parochial” football websites are full of playground bitchiness and condescending comment, and Shotsweb is no different. It’s the patronising tone that gets up my nose, but I have the skin of a rhinoceros, so no big deal. General websites can be interesting, news of opponents transfers, problems, etc..; more analytical and less condemnatory.
Not dull, though, eh, reality soap opera..

Just a thought, Karl, but isn't "patronising" in the eye of the beholder? What is patronising to person X may not be patronising to person Y. It is relative to what you already know, which obviously varies from person to person. If someone lectures me on the basics of a subject that I know well, that I may even have studied deeply, and does so knowing what I know, that is patronising. But the same person explaining the basics of a subject to someone untutored in that subject and keen to learn, that is not patronising but helpful.

I speak as someone who has frequently been accused of being patronising on here

And I must say that I never found Richard Petty patronising, or had the impression that I was being "talked at" rather than with. Not at all.

Morning Bob

[Old Bob]

Most”parochial” football websites are full of playground bitchiness and condescending comment, and Shotsweb is no different. It’s the patronising tone that gets up my nose, but I have the skin of a rhinoceros, so no big deal. General websites can be interesting, news of opponents transfers, problems, etc..; more analytical and less condemnatory.
Not dull, though, eh, reality soap opera..

Just a thought, Karl, but isn't "patronising" in the eye of the beholder? What is patronising to person X may not be patronising to person Y. It is relative to what you already know, which obviously varies from person to person. If someone lectures me on the basics of a subject that I know well, that I may even have studied deeply, and does so knowing what I know, that is patronising. But the same person explaining the basics of a subject to someone untutored in that subject and keen to learn, that is not patronising but helpful.

I speak as someone who has frequently been accused of being patronising on here

And I must say that I never found Richard Petty patronising, or had the impression that I was being "talked at" rather than with. Not at all.

Morning Bob

And to you, peter.

[karlready]

Most”parochial” football websites are full of playground bitchiness and condescending comment, and Shotsweb is no different. It’s the patronising tone that gets up my nose, but I have the skin of a rhinoceros, so no big deal. General websites can be interesting, news of opponents transfers, problems, etc..; more analytical and less condemnatory.
Not dull, though, eh, reality soap opera..

Just a thought, Karl, but isn't "patronising" in the eye of the beholder? What is patronising to person X may not be patronising to person Y. It is relative to what you already know, which obviously varies from person to person. If someone lectures me on the basics of a subject that I know well, that I may even have studied deeply, and does so knowing what I know, that is patronising. But the same person explaining the basics of a subject to someone untutored in that subject and keen to learn, that is not patronising but helpful.

I speak as someone who has frequently been accused of being patronising on here

And I must say that I never found Richard Petty patronising, or had the impression that I was being "talked at" rather than with. Not at all.

The hat fits, you wear it well

[Old Bob]

Most”parochial” football websites are full of playground bitchiness and condescending comment, and Shotsweb is no different. It’s the patronising tone that gets up my nose, but I have the skin of a rhinoceros, so no big deal. General websites can be interesting, news of opponents transfers, problems, etc..; more analytical and less condemnatory.
Not dull, though, eh, reality soap opera..

Just a thought, Karl, but isn't "patronising" in the eye of the beholder? What is patronising to person X may not be patronising to person Y. It is relative to what you already know, which obviously varies from person to person. If someone lectures me on the basics of a subject that I know well, that I may even have studied deeply, and does so knowing what I know, that is patronising. But the same person explaining the basics of a subject to someone untutored in that subject and keen to learn, that is not patronising but helpful.

I speak as someone who has frequently been accused of being patronising on here

And I must say that I never found Richard Petty patronising, or had the impression that I was being "talked at" rather than with. Not at all.

The hat fits, you wear it well

[FloridaPhil]

Who was the other poster who's called it a day ?

Jim royle

When did he announce that?

[lowerbourneshot]

Who was the other poster who's called it a day ?

Jim royle

Who upset him then ?

Most of the board

[lowerbourneshot]

Who was the other poster who's called it a day ?

Jim royle

When did he announce that?

About 2 minutes after Mr Petty

[FloridaPhil]

Jim royle

When did he announce that?

About 2 minutes after Mr Petty

I couldn’t find Jim’s post.

[Cph.shots]

Jim royle

Who upset him then ?

Most of the board

Not true!

[scorp]

When did he announce that?

About 2 minutes after Mr Petty

I couldn’t find Jim’s post.

Seems to have gone, which means...

[Birdman]

About 2 minutes after Mr Petty

I couldn’t find Jim’s post.

Seems to have gone, which means...

… that some folk aren’t looking hard enough :- viewtopic.php?t=57706

[shots1965]

Not going to miss them .... Both bored the pants off me, with their posts...
If I saw their name on a post...i would just scroll past

I remember Mr Petty doing the same thing a few years ago 4/5, maybe more

I've had loads of stick on here..doesn't bother me

Some people are too sensitive

In regard to the 2 posters leaving the ship

Will the game still be on this afternoon/tonight?

COYS