Garry Hall
Senior Member & Supporter
Neil
It seems wrong to discuss another site on BFW but the conversation does lead to it unfortunately. It was not my intention to have a go at the other site on here but the lack of understanding by the majority who contributed to my recent post about the Thames Six was shocking.
With regard to posts, I was a member of Fishing Magic many years ago and it was a better site then but I found that for me constantly talking about the same subjects was quite frustrating and I became a lurker instead of a contributor. I also had a few friends and we chatted directly without silly comments being posted. Time went by I could not remember my old log in details so I rejoined six years ago to track down an old mate who used to post on the site regularly and I had lost all of his details. That is also one of the reason why I rarely post on any site and stay away from places like facebook.
Just because I have not posted over the years should not be an issue. Is my contribution less valued because I have not done my apprenticeship by commenting on of banal posts that I have no interest in?
BFW is different and it has a huge wealth of experience and knowledge, and the pretenders are soon found out. Members do challenge each other but the arguments are based upon a genuine interest and understanding of fishing and their personal experiences, and not what was in the latest Coarse Fishing Monthly.
On most sites there are a few armchair experts who will make a quantified statement that is based upon conjecture and what they have seen or heard elsewhere. The other site (FM) seems to rely upon nucleus of people who just want to comment without any genuine belief in the subject. My post was an attempt to raise the issue but some of the responses were ignorant and a few contributors preferred to have a go at me instead of answering the question that I posed.
As I read through what was posted it was quite clear to me that those who commented could be put into several categories.
The first category was the genuine angler who looked at the video and the pictures, and instinctively knew that what had occurred was wrong. He did not need to seek guidance from his peers to make a comment and he added to the debate in a positive way.
The second category was the person who does go fishing sometimes but has rarely seen or caught a barbel. They were more interested in picking holes in the post and making statements about how many died and telling the fishery owner. I made it quite clear many times that is was about fish welfare and why I had questioned the lack of it.
They lacked the moral fibre to answer and tried to make me the villain. Talking about the old days and what was allowed then which is outdated and bears no context to the post. Angling is a great sport but we must be seen to consider the welfare of all fish and that is not happening if the Thames Six are swept under the carpet.
Some asked if my response was appropriate and why I had suddenly posted on the site. I posted because I was disgusted at what happened and could not grab hold of the person in the videos. He has rightly gone to ground and his group have also been very quiet. How many more videos are floating around of multiple catches of fish that we do not know of? The only comment from his group was that they would not allow multiple catches any more. Does that mean they have happened before, and that no one has challenged them?
I have not posted on this site very often either so should the members value my posts less against others who post all the time?
I think it is about the relevance and the importance of the post or comment that matters.
The third category of member are the 'not really sure and stop annoying me category'. It's not their fault that they do not understand why myself and others were so upset at the incident. They will go with the flow and if lucky tag a mates post with a thumbs up.
It seems wrong to discuss another site on BFW but the conversation does lead to it unfortunately. It was not my intention to have a go at the other site on here but the lack of understanding by the majority who contributed to my recent post about the Thames Six was shocking.
With regard to posts, I was a member of Fishing Magic many years ago and it was a better site then but I found that for me constantly talking about the same subjects was quite frustrating and I became a lurker instead of a contributor. I also had a few friends and we chatted directly without silly comments being posted. Time went by I could not remember my old log in details so I rejoined six years ago to track down an old mate who used to post on the site regularly and I had lost all of his details. That is also one of the reason why I rarely post on any site and stay away from places like facebook.
Just because I have not posted over the years should not be an issue. Is my contribution less valued because I have not done my apprenticeship by commenting on of banal posts that I have no interest in?
BFW is different and it has a huge wealth of experience and knowledge, and the pretenders are soon found out. Members do challenge each other but the arguments are based upon a genuine interest and understanding of fishing and their personal experiences, and not what was in the latest Coarse Fishing Monthly.
On most sites there are a few armchair experts who will make a quantified statement that is based upon conjecture and what they have seen or heard elsewhere. The other site (FM) seems to rely upon nucleus of people who just want to comment without any genuine belief in the subject. My post was an attempt to raise the issue but some of the responses were ignorant and a few contributors preferred to have a go at me instead of answering the question that I posed.
As I read through what was posted it was quite clear to me that those who commented could be put into several categories.
The first category was the genuine angler who looked at the video and the pictures, and instinctively knew that what had occurred was wrong. He did not need to seek guidance from his peers to make a comment and he added to the debate in a positive way.
The second category was the person who does go fishing sometimes but has rarely seen or caught a barbel. They were more interested in picking holes in the post and making statements about how many died and telling the fishery owner. I made it quite clear many times that is was about fish welfare and why I had questioned the lack of it.
They lacked the moral fibre to answer and tried to make me the villain. Talking about the old days and what was allowed then which is outdated and bears no context to the post. Angling is a great sport but we must be seen to consider the welfare of all fish and that is not happening if the Thames Six are swept under the carpet.
Some asked if my response was appropriate and why I had suddenly posted on the site. I posted because I was disgusted at what happened and could not grab hold of the person in the videos. He has rightly gone to ground and his group have also been very quiet. How many more videos are floating around of multiple catches of fish that we do not know of? The only comment from his group was that they would not allow multiple catches any more. Does that mean they have happened before, and that no one has challenged them?
I have not posted on this site very often either so should the members value my posts less against others who post all the time?
I think it is about the relevance and the importance of the post or comment that matters.
The third category of member are the 'not really sure and stop annoying me category'. It's not their fault that they do not understand why myself and others were so upset at the incident. They will go with the flow and if lucky tag a mates post with a thumbs up.
