Food Q&A  permalink

Ask the host (again!)

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 351 - 400 of 548
  • Message 351

    , in reply to message 347.

    Posted by brightyangthing (U14184246) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    In response to msg 374 (Gruney)

    Hi Gruney

    Please DO get involved with food and cooking questions, tips and comments.

    There are still some people on the board, as imperfect as it is, who have some positive and pertinent comments to make.




    Report message1

  • Message 352

    , in reply to message 351.

    Posted by Mrs Vee (U2897076) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    ~~QUESTION FOR THE HOST~~

    Sakkarin, who has very kindly provided us with a brilliant search facility for 3 1/2 years, has apparently decided to close it in protest at the No Snagging rule. I don't blame him; it's a stupid rule that seems to benefit no-one.

    www.carta.co.uk/beeb...

    So, Ramona, is there any chance of rescinding the 'No Snagging' rule, please? Or alternatively, will the BBC provide us with a search function?

    **Many thanks to Sakkarin for all the help his search engine has given**

    Report message2

  • Message 353

    , in reply to message 347.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Hi Gruney,

    I joined because I was so thrilled to find a like minded group of people, really interested in food, and to swap recipes, ideas and tips. I'm hanging in hoping it might go back to it's heyday. So many of the really talented and experienced cooks disappeared but have started posting again. I am keeping my fingers crossed, especially as recipes are allowed again .

    Thanks to people like Gill, Luca, Sakkarin (sorry if I haven't mentioned you smiley - winkeye especially the honorary Zodians) and the occasionally posting stalwarts the board might become interesting again.

    All together now "We will overcome"
    www.youtube.com/watc...



    Report message3

  • Message 354

    , in reply to message 353.

    Posted by pathewitt (U2260996) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Despite some of the imperfections, I think the content of the board has improved over the last few days. I , too, hope it remains that way.

    Report message4

  • Message 355

    , in reply to message 354.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Agree pat, it feels a bit better.

    Just wondering when the colour and type size/layout might change?

    These are really, really easy things to fix in my experience.

    Also the dratted 'my discussion' problem, etc?

    Can we have an update before the weekend if poss? Thanks.

    Report message5

  • Message 356

    , in reply to message 355.

    Posted by Stokey Sue (U14258170) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    On the old board, when you went to "My Discussions" there was a button to view "My Comments"

    Now we can post comments in the blog, and it would actually be useful, it has disappeared

    Any chance we could have it back please?

    (Sorry if this has already been raised, but this is too long a thread to trawl through now)

    Report message6

  • Message 357

    , in reply to message 352.

    Posted by Nigeepoo (U14259229) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    So, Ramona, is there any chance of rescinding the 'No Snagging' rule, please? Or alternatively, will the BBC provide us with a search function?  Is the problem
    a) Use of the word "Snagged/Snagging"? or
    b) Adding a thread to Your Discussions by posting a single word reply?

    If the problem is a) would the word "Subscribed" be acceptable to the BBC & users?

    Report message7

  • Message 358

    , in reply to message 349.

    Posted by Scoobydoo (U11966922) on Friday, 3rd September 2010

    Do you doubt that a large majority of the expressions of opinion on the new site have been negative? 
    On two threads.
    Every Ask the Host thread has been usurped for arguments and negativity by some posters and repetition plays a huge part in "boosting" the negativity which is why this is the fourth ATH "clean slate".

    "Do you agree that..." and "In my opinion..." and "Do you doubt that..." are meaningless conjecture.
    I simply object to anyone expecting "spokesman" - sorry, "spokesperson" - statements such as "a large majority of opinion" to be simply accepted as fact or proven.
    The majority of users may disapprove, may be indifferent or may be happy to post as always.

    So, it's nothing to do with the nits you may (or may not) have.
    It's about presenting a factual argument rather than an emotional one.

    And, as I said earlier, that doesn't mean to say I am wholly in favour of this Board in it's present format.

    Report message8

  • Message 359

    , in reply to message 358.

    Posted by dennispc (U7800277) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Mary Berry was asked eighteen questions, only nine were answered. Why?

    This is not a reply to post 358 but I can't see any other way of posting a message. I find that odd.

    Report message9

  • Message 360

    , in reply to message 359.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Mary answered as many of the questions as she could when we sent them to her early last week. She left the scones question as she felt this one could be much better answered by Paul Hollywood when he comes on the site next.

    Report message10

  • Message 361

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by Mrs Vee (U2897076) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    ~~QUESTION FOR THE HOST~~

    Sakkarin, who has very kindly provided us with a brilliant search facility for 3 1/2 years, has apparently decided to close it in protest at the No Snagging rule. I don't blame him; it's a stupid rule that seems to benefit no-one.

    www.carta.co.uk/beeb...

    So, Ramona, is there any chance of rescinding the 'No Snagging' rule, please? Or alternatively, will the BBC provide us with a search function?

    **Many thanks to Sakkarin for all the help his search engine has given** 


    Hi Ramona - you're obviously around and about today because you've already posted on this and other threads.

    Is there any chance of an answer to my question (above) in post 352, please?

    Report message11

  • Message 362

    , in reply to message 310.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Ramona Andrews,

    Why is it taking so long to iron out all the bugs - especially as on the 2nd August you said

    We're actually having more resource put into Food communities than before 

    Report message12

  • Message 363

    , in reply to message 360.

    Posted by GillthePainter (U2164232) on Monday, 6th September 2010

    Hi Ramona.

    What's making some messages look like html please?

    I've posted the message twice, but both are displaying badly, I thought it might be the arroba sign fighting with the view.

    I've typed it in the reply box, not via word or notepad, so that doesn't explain it:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message13

  • Message 364

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by marilina (U3878924) on Wednesday, 8th September 2010

    Hello Ramona

    This ia maybe not the place for this question, but I don't know where is.

    As per a previous thread of mine, would it be possible for 'celebrities' that post their recipes on this site refer to 'eggs' and not free range eggs ad infinitum? We all know the benefits of free range eggs and will buy them if that is what we normally do, or not buy them if that is what we normally do. It's so irritating to constantly see the 'free range' bit - as if we're stupid and cannot make the decision for ourselves. We all make our own decisions on eggs and flour, butter or any other ingredient. It would be good if they could back off a bit on this and just state 'eggs'.

    Report message14

  • Message 365

    , in reply to message 362.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Friday, 10th September 2010

    Hello everyone,
    Yes we have got a lot more resource for hosting communities on the BBC Food website - unfortunately we don't always get as much technology support resource as we'd like, but there are a lot of BBC messageboards out there to support.

    I have asked a senior member of the team working on the BBC DNA sites refresh to write a piece for the BBC Internet blog and he has told me it will be published very soon. This will explain why these changes have been made and will continue to be made across BBC messageboards - I'll give you all a link as soon as the piece goes up.

    In the meantime I have passed on the latest bugs - including Gillthepainters problem with the messy html appearing on some posts - to the team and promise updates when I get them. I assure you I am fighting to get these bugs smoothed out.

    R

    Report message15

  • Message 366

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 12th September 2010

    Hi R

    When one clicks "Reply" these dats the post being replied to appears below, preceeded by "In reply to..."

    It would be helpful if

    1) The post number and perhaps posting time/date also appeared
    2) The text appeared between "quote" markers.

    This (Beeb) is the ONLY board I know of where these things are not handled for users!

    O

    PS Surely this thread should be sticky?

    Report message16

  • Message 367

    , in reply to message 365.

    Posted by GillthePainter (U2164232) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    I have asked a senior member of the team working on the BBC DNA sites refresh to write a piece for the BBC Internet blog and he has told me it will be published very soon. This will explain why these changes have been made and will continue to be made across BBC messageboards - I'll give you all a link as soon as the piece goes up. 

    I do hope this isn't going to be a blog post that sings the praises of these amendments, without recognising the negative impact.
    As the board seems to have seized to a halt, Ramona.

    One point that seems to be being ignored here, is the impact upon the good will of the participants.
    It has run dry from what I can see.

    Part of this, is the order from you not to snag.
    Which let's face it, was based on a misunderstanding on your part. You must now have realized that snagging is part of messageboard culture.

    So, when are you going to lift this imposition of a rule about snagging, and allow people to subscribe in this way to pieces of information they will find useful for a later date.

    By the way, I cannot really believe I need to ask permission to snag. Doesn't it strike you as odd and stifling to have to do this?

    Report message17

  • Message 368

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by Mrs Vee (U2897076) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Gill - I really hope you get an answer to this, but I'm not holding my breath. I've asked the question twice (#352 & #361) but it seems Ramona is somewhat selective in the questions she chooses to answer.

    Ramona - are you actively trying to make this board die from lack of interest?

    Report message18

  • Message 369

    , in reply to message 368.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Mrs Vee - the odd think is I don't think she is trying to kill it off.

    Ramona - I note that the "Your Discussions" no longer has a direct link to ones latest post on a thread. Please restore this very convenient functionality, which can all be done in 3 lines per thread - see Archers layout!

    Report message19

  • Message 370

    , in reply to message 367.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Well said Gill.

    I spent Sunday evening composing a post to out Host but decided it would be better if I didn't post it.

    In it one of the things I pointed out was that some of the so called new all dancing, singing features such as the chefs answering questions had been done before and not so long ago either. Lots of other things too, such as what brief the IT team had been given.

    You are so right good will of the participants.
    It has run dry from what I can see. 


    I think this is noticeable in the seemingly mass exodus of posters.

    What a travesty of a thriving community this has become.


    Report message20

  • Message 371

    , in reply to message 370.

    Posted by Friar Tuck (U4102818) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    I agree with you 100% D smiley - smiley

    Never mind. The BBC, being the brilliant initiators that the have always been ( smiley - smiley ), are now beginning to hand out their tired and over-used Food programme format to the commercial channels, as they have always done with all their other products smiley - smiley

    .... and we are not encouraged to talk about them on here !

    Report message21

  • Message 372

    , in reply to message 361.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    I have spoken with various people from our social media department and central DNA moderation and they had also not heard of snagging before. It seems that it’s something very particular to the food site and therefore is not something that is widely known in forums.

    Therefore, as disappointed as I am not to have Sakkarin’s excellent search function available to us - Sakkarin please reconsider! - I have to reiterate that we’d rather you didn’t simply write ‘snag’ or ‘snagging’ on your posts. As I said before it’s very confusing for new users. If you like or don’t like a thread, please say so. A simple comment/statement of opinion is so much more meaningful, particularly to new users.

    Report message22

  • Message 373

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by Paulthebread (U3840406) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    A simple comment/statement of opinion is so much more meaningful, particularly to new users. 

    Here's a statement of opinion for you Ramona - you won't like it, but, tough.

    This board, since the recent changes, is an absolute shadow of what it used to be.

    This lovely, friendly, knowledgeable community has been scattered to the four winds - and all you can do is bang on about snagging.

    It's beyond pathetic.

    (And I AM mincing my words here, because the language I would prefer to use would be full of four-letter words!

    None of them 'snag'!

    Yours, bitterly,

    Paul

    Report message23

  • Message 374

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    RESPONSE TO HOST RAMONA

    "I have spoken with various people from our social media department and central DNA moderation and they had also not heard of snagging before. It seems that it’s something very particular to the food site and therefore is not something that is widely known in forums." 
    GOOD GRIEF!!! Ramona, did you pay any attention at all to my previous posts about the snagging controversy?

    I shall repeat it here. Please go to the website below. You will notice that it is the online site of the reputable Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    www.merriam-webster....

    Do you notice that "snag" is used in the very manner over which you are arguing as in, “I managed to snag the information I needed from the Internet”? Hardly something very particular to the food site, is it? You see it IS a legitimate use of the word! So why the heavy resistance to our use of the word?

    Surely you are not saying that we can't use a word simply because you and your colleagues have a limited vocabulary? There is lots of other computer jargon that you use freely. If you are worried that new members will not understand what it means, I suggest you make a note in FAQs.

    One last point: if we had to take a vote on whether new members would prefer to be able to search the messageboards for useful information, or have to ask what "snag" means, I don't even have to tell you what the overwhelming result would be.


    Report message24

  • Message 375

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by marilina (U3878924) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Ramona

    I totally agree with Paul's post on the use of the word snagging.

    You give as a reason not to use it 'that it is confusing' to new users. So is 'atm' to some people and 'boggof' and a host of other shortforms, but people still use them.

    Do you want to ban everything that you personally don't like?

    Report message25

  • Message 376

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by GillthePainter (U2164232) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    As I said before it’s very confusing for new users 

    This doesn't make sense to me, Ramona.

    A new user doesn't know how to:

    - quiote
    - post images
    - post links
    - access their discussions
    - that James Martin questions will go unanswered unless they add it to the correct thread

    Far from being excluded as a result, members here go out of their way to explain it all to newbies.

    And they are grateful to have their questions answered by us.

    Which in turn promotes a community feel. Which we are in desperate need of at the moment.

    Regards Gill.



    Report message26

  • Message 377

    , in reply to message 374.

    Posted by marilina (U3878924) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Texas Titch

    FAQ????
    I wouldn't mind betting that some people don't know what that means, so it should be banned as well.

    Report message27

  • Message 378

    , in reply to message 373.

    Posted by Tatihou (U6849712) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    ...and all you can do is bang on about snagging. 
    Which might be because a significant minority of posters are *still* banging on about their right to snag.

    This msgboard doesn't want "snag" as one word posts on threads. Big deal. But it seems the significant - or perhaps just vociferous - minority is desperate to have it recognised that their knowledge of webby stuff is superior to the Beeb's.

    It certainly is beyond pathetic.

    Making Sakkarin's search facility a permanent, food messageboard "sticky" is so much better than endless snags and bumps, is one heck of an accolade imo, and true recognition of the value of his efforts.

    Report message28

  • Message 379

    , in reply to message 377.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    "Texas Titch

    FAQ????" 

    Marilina, haven't you seen the link "FAQs" in the list on the left of your screen? Of course, you are right in that if they don't know what FAQ means, then they are unlikely to benefit from the answers! lol!

    The final irony is that without Sakkarin's search engine, people would need to snag threads more than ever! smiley - doh

    Report message29

  • Message 380

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    "minority is desperate to have it recognised that their knowledge of webby stuff is superior to the Beeb's.

    It certainly is beyond pathetic." 

    Oh, please, Tatihou! It is in the dictionary, for goodness sake! That is such an unnecessary, small-minded comment from you.

    Report message30

  • Message 381

    , in reply to message 379.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Dear God...just when you thought it could not get any worse...

    This apology of the BBC message board is unacceptable to all.
    So please do something about it.

    Report message31

  • Message 382

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    <quote>

    Question Ramona - What on earth is DNA moderation? And you are still banging on about "snagging"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Confusing to new members? - not as confusing as some of the gobbledegook language used on this board just lately.

    Would it be possible please for you to actually answer some questions posed by board members and also take on board some of the comments and their disappointment, not just yours.

    And on the subject of snagging - which you seem so fond of - would you prefer "ping" or pingaling" which is in common usage on the gardening board. To snag can mean to catch onto something which can make sense, but ping?

    Report message32

  • Message 383

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by Ramona Andrews BBC Food host (U14570541) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    As I said before we would be more than happy to make Sakkarin's search facility a 'sticky' if it were switched on again.

    In the meantime, here's a blog post from the BBC Internet site that you may be interested in. It explains why we have made the recent changes to the Food messageboard:

    www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/...

    (I'll just warn you now that it's a rather techie blog so the language and style of the blog post reflects this).

    Report message33

  • Message 384

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by GillthePainter (U2164232) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    The fact you consider our opinions beyond pathetic is of no consequence to me, Tahitou.

    I've said it before, this messageboard doesn't function for me without his excellent search engine.

    So what then would be the point of making his excellent facility a sticky.

    Unless you haven't noticed Sakkarins search engine is suspended under protest.




    Report message34

  • Message 385

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Pinging....

    Report message35

  • Message 386

    , in reply to message 385.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Hi fiorella

    lol, lol, lol - hate the new smileys smiley - winkeye

    Report message36

  • Message 387

    , in reply to message 376.

    Posted by uschi (U2208236) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Ach Gill, to paraphrase Sting here:

    "This place has changed for good
    Your corporate theory said it would
    It`s hard for us to understand
    We can`t give up our board the way we should"

    I think we may well save our breath to cool our porridge.

    Report message37

  • Message 388

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    In reply to Ramona Andrews:
    I have spoken with various people from our social media department and central DNA moderation and they had also not heard of snagging before. It seems that it’s something very particular to the food site and therefore is not something that is widely known in forums.

    Therefore, as disappointed as I am not to have Sakkarin’s excellent search function available to us - Sakkarin please reconsider! - I have to reiterate that we’d rather you didn’t simply write ‘snag’ or ‘snagging’ on your posts. As I said before it’s very confusing for new users. If you like or don’t like a thread, please say so. A simple comment/statement of opinion is so much more meaningful, particularly to new users.
     


    Automatically Snag Podcasts From the Internet With Juice
    by Lisa Hoover - Jul. 06, 2009Comments (0)
    Related Blog Posts
    New Beta Version of Audacity Offers Peek at New Features

    Unless you're ingesting insane amounts of caffeine, you're probably not staying awake around the clock to listen to your favorite podcasts the second they're put online. Juice, an open source podcast receiver, lets you snag your favorite audio programs from the Internet and store them on your computer until you're ready to listen


    ostatic.com/blog/aut...

    Report message38

  • Message 389

    , in reply to message 372.

    Posted by Mrs Vee (U2897076) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    I have spoken with various people from our social media department and central DNA moderation and they had also not heard of snagging before. 

    They must have led very sheltered lives.

    I'm not a techie and I'm not au fait with much of the jargon that can be found on the net, but even I managed to work out pretty easily what 'snag' meant.

    Thanks to the recent changes this board is now a soulless, heartless place which is slowly dying on its feet.

    Report message39

  • Message 390

    , in reply to message 389.

    Posted by fiorella (U14428035) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Then where on earth have they been Ramona?

    This is verging on the ridiculous now.
    Posters...US... know all about snagging. Maybe you could learn...

    The excuses regarding this insult the intellegence and integrity of people who have happily posted - and snagged - here for a long time.
    And it is not on.

    Report message40

  • Message 391

    , in reply to message 384.

    Posted by Tatihou (U6849712) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    The fact you consider our opinions beyond pathetic is of no consequence to me, Tahitou.  
    Thus proving by your post that the comment was, indeed, of consequence.

    I've said it before, this messageboard doesn't function for me without his excellent search engine.

    So what then would be the point of making his excellent facility a sticky.  

    Erm... as the profile of Sakkarin's excellent search engine would be *better* served by making it a sticky - rather than have random members "bumping" sporadically - I hope that he will make it available again in the near future. And if he does, it will become... a most excellent... sticky. smiley - biggrin

    Report message41

  • Message 392

    , in reply to message 391.

    Posted by GillthePainter (U2164232) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    As I said.
    Of no consequence. And as Texas Titch said, small minded.

    Report message42

  • Message 393

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by sweettweet (U14258914) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Hello Ramona,
    hmmmm .... I have read David Williams' blog and, as you said, very techie. This, in itself, is not a bad thing. And it is clear that the changes here are reflecting bigger changes going on.

    However, one of the things that I think is pertinent here is that some ... not all, but some, folks on here liked the BBC messageboards because they were simple .. Can David Williams imagine his audience a bit more accurately? Perhaps it's a question for him!!!

    Report message43

  • Message 394

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by LaConchita (U8276927) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Sorry Ramona I still can't work out the objection to snagging and why you/BBC are digging your heels in on this? Funnily enough the continuing debate means that it would be difficult for anyone to NOT know now!

    Anyway, here by example a fairly recent thread - 2009 - showing how it is not at all alienating for new posters ...

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    (Obviously I could find more/better eg's if we had Sakkarin ...) hoho.

    Report message44

  • Message 395

    , in reply to message 378.

    Posted by Denadar (U8017493) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Making Sakkarin's search facility a permanent, food messageboard "sticky" is so much better than endless snags and bumps, is one heck of an accolade imo, and true recognition of the value of his efforts. 

    Only if Sakkarin thinks so too Tatihou, and at the moment the search engine is still closed by Sakkarin himself as a protest against "no snagging" .
    www.carta.co.uk/beeb...

    Report message45

  • Message 396

    , in reply to message 395.

    Posted by Mrs Vee (U2897076) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    What I'm at a loss to understand is why the BBC is unable (or unwilling) to supply us with a proper search facility.

    Sakkarin's search engine was brilliant and we were very lucky to have it for so long, but it's astonishing that the BBC, one of the biggest broadcast organisations in the world, should be relying on a messageboarder to step in and do their job for them.

    Next thing you know, they'll be advertising for volunteer newsreaders and replacing Eastenders with a bit of local AmDram (actually, that would be a good thing!)

    Report message46

  • Message 397

    , in reply to message 396.

    Posted by lindacatarina (U13954551) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Ramona -

    Why have you brought the same atmosphere of the dead UKtv food message board to these boards?

    I'm not talking even about the look of the place which I know people have pointed out endlessly how hard it is for example to read White with other tones of White...and other techy problems....

    ....no I'm talking about the things you choose to make a point about which seem to do nothing but rattle people for no apparent common sense reason.

    Things like off the top of my head at 10 o'clock at night:

    You are not allowed to post your recipes...
    Oh...you're not allowed to post recipes in a manner that look like recipes but you can type recipes as long as they're not in recipe format...(this one goes down as a classic for me)

    Oops you are allowed to post recipes!

    You are not allowed to discuss food tv shows...
    ...Oh...you're allowed to mention the program in the title as long as you don't discuss the program in the thread

    Arhh...well you are allowed to discuss food programs but must behave like school children

    You are not allowed to use snag...not for any vital reason in the process of change for the site just because I didn't get it or others I converse with don't get it

    You know I'm not very clever and just had to look up on my web dictionary the meaning of 'Host' just to make sure I wasn't confusing it with 'dictatorship'.

    People on here get silly at times and this place can be a fun but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be treated with a little more respect and consideration when we can see the indiscriminate approach given here since you joined the board.

    Yep I've just nailed a nail in my coffin...I realise that !

    ....will the last person to leave please turn off the lights...

    Report message47

  • Message 398

    , in reply to message 383.

    Posted by juliana50 (U14218594) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    Ramona

    why why why are you so determined to make life difficult for yourself by provoking these arguments?

    Are you perhaps very young and inexperienced? Are you perhaps clinging pathetically to your little bit of power?

    If you truly believe that you have a justifiable and grown up case, why not simply suggest to us what might be an acceptable alternative to this terrible word "snag"? We might then begin to believe that you are here to help us rather than antagonise.

    What do you think might work for you and for us?
    "What an interestering post"?
    "What a good idea"?
    "I like this"?
    "Eureka"? .............

    Report message48

  • Message 399

    , in reply to message 398.

    Posted by TexasTitch (U2249854) on Tuesday, 14th September 2010

    "What do you think might work for you and for us?" 
    Perhaps just a smiling smiley: smiley - smiley

    Or maybe just one word: Thanks 

    Or maybe put them together to get: Thanks smiley - smiley 

    After all, I often used to say, "Snagging, thanks. smiley - smiley

    Report message49

  • Message 400

    , in reply to message 399.

    Posted by sueturnersmith (U741218) on Wednesday, 15th September 2010

    I also used to say 'snagging, thanks!'

    Maybe if we all started snagging every post, Ramona would get the message?

    We are being treated like littled kids, perhaps it's time we acted like them smiley - winkeye

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

BBC Food messageboard

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.