DART Tunnel/Interconnector

[Peter FitzPatrick]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

Technical discussion is reserved for the members area, crayonism is of no interest to the normal passenger

yeah this kind of stuff, which tends to end pretty much every thread, is hardly the way to attract new members.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by Peter FitzPatrick

yeah this kind of stuff, which tends to end pretty much every thread, is hardly the way to attract new members.

Yes it is, actually.

[Mark Hennessy]

Originally Posted by Peter FitzPatrick

yeah this kind of stuff, which tends to end pretty much every thread, is hardly the way to attract new members.

Peter while I see your point, a decision was made to keep all of the infrastructure and technical to one area away from the main issue; the poor service and the daily problems faced by commuters.

I and many others do not care what train got us to work so long as it was punctual and comfortable (i'm not talking about being guaranteed a seat).

These issues are far more important for the average commuter.

[Notjim]

That would be fine if the technical threads were public too; this, the slightly pompous tone, the vituperation and too many Joe-Duffy-isms are preventing this from being a useful forum for thoughtful discussion of rail transport issues.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by Notjim

That would be fine if the technical threads were public too; this, the slightly pompous tone, the vituperation and too many Joe-Duffy-isms are preventing this from being a useful forum for thoughtful discussion of rail transport issues.

No, when we had a free for all the forum was way too bogged down in posts about the merits/demerits of a type of bogie, of such and such an alignment and all that. It turned the place into a transpotters/engineers fan club, and this is not what out mission statement is.

I thought that by putting an announcement up on it I would avoid such discussions as this.

Technical discussion in the public area was turning people off the site. You can have all the meaningful technical discussion you like in its proper area.

IF you really want to know this stuff it is in the members section. As for Joe Duffy-isms, I'm all in favour of them - we are a rail USERS representation organisation. As things stand today our hit rate has gone through the roof since before Christmas, and it was high enough then, and Mark and I are up to our proverbials with media coverage, so as far as we're concered it seems to be working well.

As for vituperation - I for one try to close these things down with a little tounge in cheek and I dont accept that any of my or Mark's posts are delivered in that vein.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Membership has its benefits:

1. You can engage in technical discussion, you can plan for the future, you can come up with solutions to the current shortcomings in the rail system

2. As a Member you decide the policy of the Organisation at the AGM. You can put down a motion and if its carried its policy. You can decide that you would like to engage in the day to day decision making and go on the committee.

3. You can decide that any one of the committee has lost his way and have us turfed off.

4 As for the matter in hand - we have had an AGM since the clampdown on the technical discussion stuff was imposed, no-one made an issue of it. If you want to reverse this decision, you can propose it at AGM, you can start a thread about it in the members section and we can all debate it there.

5. As a member you are absolutly entitled to give feedback on the organisation's ethos, its role, its functionality and if you think we're doing it right or wrong. You can start a thread any day you like in the members section about it. As I said before, this is not a facility open to non-members, as it would be akin to me trying to alter the policies of the AA whilst not being a member of the AA.

I am now closing this thread in an act of censure, vilification, spite, scolding, defamation, aspersion.