New Rank Titles

[Grump]

God himself has spoken, Ta dad init?

keep it light hearted Friends

 

[paulm]

I think its very sad if you read anything into the rankings and don't accept it for what it is, its just a bit of fun and just because I'm a Legend, doesn't mean that I am one, can turn amazing things or has any other meaning than that I'm gobby and enjoy exchanging views with some like minded people on all aspects of life with the focus on turning pens.

 

[paulm]

All I'm going to say on this subject is the system we have at the moment has created a lot of fun for members so to extend it will only create more of the same so what is wrong with that Jim has done a sterling job with this forum and the set up we have what other forum can you go on and see the pink panther, Kermit and Doc let alone Grump all under one roof you do what you think is right Jim and I for one will be right behind you even this subject has created a lot of fun on its own keep it light hearted Friends

Exaclty Woody

 

[Woody]

Exaclty Woody

Thanks Doc

 

[Terry]

Jim the majority have spoken let us keep it as it is and we'll ALL be legends in 6 months!!!! LOL

 

[Neil]

Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub

said Captain Flack!

 

[Penpal]

The term ranking system is an oxy moron a naming system having fun is different, I enjoy fun will incorporate it in my sharing more and more when a question is asked be prepared for levity life is too serious anyway. Enjoy the ride guys I will as fellas reach a new name commiserations are in order.

Peter.

 

[Neil]

How about "bletherskite"

A pearler that one Walter, never heard of it so looked it up
"from the norse "skita", to defecate" "from old scots, a blether, a bladder or container"
"one who talks shite constantly, to be full of shite"

 

[Walter]

Bugger me I am not trying to stir the shit or upset anyone.

All I am saying is it matters not one bletherskites ear trumpet what the bloody rankings are. Like Brian says they are bit of fun. But it is silly and pointless relating them to turning skills how about:

Shy, mildly introverted, normal, bletherskite and gobshite.

 

[Neil]

Sorry if I am not reading this right but I see that as a ranking system too.
Who the hell is Richard Raffan that he wouldn't be called a plonker if he came here.
Blimey he's only a geezer the same as the rest of us, I don't want to shatter illusions but there are no gods (only Woody).

Brian,

I read that as Walter being in full support of your point. It is also aimed somewhat as a criticism of the inevitable inability of any system to judge the value of a contribution, and I suppose to suggest that someone could make a much more valuable contribution to the forum by making five (for example) erudite and meaningful posts rather than to sit there and rely to every post with the comment such as "nice bowl "

 

[Walter]

Sorry if I am not reading this right but I see that as a ranking system too.
Who the hell is Richard Raffan that he wouldn't be called a plonker if he came here.
Blimey he's only a geezer the same as the rest of us, I don't want to shatter illusions but there are no gods (only Woody).

Of course its a bloody ranking system. That was my point. It is bloody stupid and pointless. I was using it as an analogy or metaphor to avoid appearing to criticise the system here but obviously failed.

 

[Grump]

Enough is enough,
Been here before too many times on too many forums I am out of this conversation.

 

[Walter]

Sorry Brian I am not wanting an argument either.

1. I agree with you the "rankings" are a bit of fun.

2. They are entirely pointless and no one should get upset about them even though the concept of relating them to turning skill is (in my opinion) perverse.

3. There is no need to change them.

What is there to argue about?

 

[Goulss]

I for one is happy to be classified Turner, after all it's what I do

oooohhhhhh just seen I appear to have been promoted to Top Turner,don't I just wish that was true

 

[paulm]

It is such a pity that such a trivial thing can be made into such an important issue.

I don't give a damn about what names we're called after so many posts and only an idiot would think that it gives him some sort of power over the others... its a bit of fun, get over it. There is nothing formal about this forum and the members (most of them) just want to have a bit of banter and exchange views and images of a variety of things. Why is this such an issue????

Jim is doing a fantastic job running this site and if he wants to add more names, I for one don't care, perhaps there should be an opt in or opt out of having light hearted fun!!!!!!!!

 

[paulm]

maybe we should also have a 'don't like' button on posts!

 

[Walter]

It is such a pity that such a trivial thing can be made into such an important issue.

I don't give a damn about what names we're called after so many posts and only an idiot would think that it gives him some sort of power over the others... its a bit of fun, get over it. There is nothing formal about this forum and the members (most of them) just want to have a bit of banter and exchange views and images of a variety of things. Why is this such an issue????

Jim is doing a fantastic job running this site and if he wants to add more names, I for one don't care, perhaps there should be an opt in or opt out of having light hearted fun!!!!!!!!

I really don't know Paul and it certainly wasn't my intention to make it into one.

Penpal said "Jim I sincerely suggest alongside my name the title member is sufficient, no count is necessary at all." and I agreed with him and explained why. (I still do agree with him but that doesn't mean I think there needs to be a change.)

When I re-read my post this morning I was concerned that my explanation might seem to be critical of people who make a lot of posts so I went on to explain it further. I wish I hadn't bothered as my comments seem to have been misinterpreted as suggesting there is a need to change and that I am anti-fun, that I think Richard Raffan is god and goodness knows what else.

I agree with you entirely when you say "Jim is doing a fantastic job running this site and if he wants to add more names, I for one don't care" That really is all there is to it.

 

[Penpal]

Reading todays posts, up at 4 am on my way to the shed figuring an answer to how, when where and why with a real situation lots of fun. The naming game is always Jims perogative might find some more tools, now where did I put that special drill?

Best of to all. Peter.

 

[Buckeye]

Jim, you have done a great job with this forum, there really is no need to give full democracy to everything. Just keep doing as you have already done and run a great forum, you know what needs to be done with the ranks, just do it and don't listen to the f**kers who don't see a point in it, it doesn't hurt anyone and as has been said, is a bit of fun.

Peter

 

[Woody]

I dont understand why this post has gone this way Jim ask a simple question (Quote) Could you please post suggestions for titles of new ranks in this thread to add to our current list .. suggestions not a bloody discussion I wouldn't mind betting Jim wishes he had kept his mouth shut
Jim I will say it again and I'm sure this is on behalf of a lot of us you are doing a sterling job of this forum you do what you think best and you will have our full support end of stoty as far as I'm concerned