Thing is it's the position of the moderators to dictate wo can and can't post what rather than other members.
What annoys me on here is certain people who have a problem with an open discussion forum because it may involve people expressing an opinion they don't like.
Sadly this forum has its fair share of people with chips on their shoulders recently - let alone some who use Metropol to be abusive, unprofessional and offensive. I suppose that is what all they have left after failing.
I don't see why they have to be professional on Metropol they're not at work. They understandably just have a low tolerance for morons and people who make this forum unreadable.
I don't see why they have to be professional on Metropol they're not at work. They understandably just have a low tolerance for morons and people who make this forum unreadable.
It's a public forum. They might imagine that kind of behaviour to be acceptable in public, but not everybody does think that behaviour is acceptable or even warranted.
I think we already gathered last week that on Sat/Sun editions, the two presenters co-host as before, while Friday uses the new weekday format.
I can understand the frustration of some who find that element of pres discussion banal.
Whilst there may be 2 presenters like before they have been messing about with the positioning of them for weeks
Today they are back to how they used to be and now feel equally important again. They have tried having them at opposite ends of the desk with the newspaper reviewers in the middle and having the presenters in the middle with the reviewers at the ends therefore it was a valid observation that after all the experimentation they have gone back to what they used to do.
So is this, so expect posts and members views to be subject to discussion, especially if it's absurd or unreasonable. Hardly as bad as calling out a colleague you work with in real life in a voluntary capacity rubbish or even more impolite terms than that.
So is this, so expect posts and members views to be subject to discussion, especially if it's absurd or unreasonable. Hardly as bad as calling out a colleague you work with in real life in a voluntary capacity rubbish or even more impolite terms than that.
I prefer being open and honest about my views, rather than going behind other people's backs. Obviously your ideas about what is worse than something else differ greatly from mine.
And that's why these moans are posted there not here. These points need to be made as it's about the quality of the conversation and I'm sure you want quality conversation on your forum?
So is this, so expect posts and members views to be subject to discussion, especially if it's absurd or unreasonable. Hardly as bad as calling out a colleague you work with in real life in a voluntary capacity rubbish or even more impolite terms than that.
I prefer being open and honest about my views, rather than going behind other people's backs. Obviously your ideas about what is worse than something else differ greatly from mine.
Just wow. IIRC which I do, you moaned about a fellow volunteer on a Internet forum, rather than face to face?
Does anyone else find it irritating that for a large amount of News at Ten, the ticker simply tells that you can see the papers at 10.30 - describing it as breaking news? For a sort of 'headline' show I'd prefer to have the actual news stories.
Does anyone else find it irritating that for a large amount of News at Ten, the ticker simply tells that you can see the papers at 10.30 - describing it as breaking news? For a sort of 'headline' show I'd prefer to have the actual news stories.
Our usual practice is to have the normal ticker runnng for the first 15 minutes of the programme, and alert viewers to the papers for the following 15 minutes in the hope they stick around. Before the News at Ten refresh, it was for the whole half hour.
Hopefully it was described as a 'news alert' rather than 'breaking news' - but I must admit, that was a mistake I made once or twice when I was an on-screen text producer!