Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Is that really necessary (re long SR22 thread)?

Is it very helpful to our community that an administrator locks a topic if one of us asks a critical question? In this case I made critical comment about Peter repeatedly mentioning the “Cirrus chute that did not open”, and I was advised that the next non-technical posting would result in the “thread beeing locked”. Now the thread is locked because i made a joking remark about that.

I find theses rules too strict, sometimes and the “punishment” too harsh.

But if the administrators really think that a critical remark every now and then is “off limits”, then I would kindly ask them to treat all threads and remarks the same. “Church of COPA” for example is a provocative term, not factual, not technical.

My 5 C.

I think Peter has a very had job to do, and recognise that no matter what he does, someone will think that they have been hard done by.

I’m not sure that “punished” is the right description for locking a thread, but appreciate that it might feel like that to the person who made the post that caused it to be locked.

I’m surprised how much personal critisim (or critique) Peter takes here without deleting, even if it’s ment in a humourous way. I respect him a lot for allowing that to take place, as I’d probably delete it straight away. But I think Peter recognises that this has to be “our place” and not “his place” if it’s to grow and prosper. I don’t think that anyone could honeslty accuse him of not allowing a critical remark every now and then, when they actually think about it.

Given the job that he has to do, I think he does it very well and is very balanced.

Many of us here will know him personally, and will realise the amount of time that he spends trying to keep us all ‘inline’ so as to keep the friendly atmosphere that we have here. Clearly that works.

Obviously from time to time some of us will fall foul to something, and we probably don’t like when it happens, but we have to accept that there is a cost to keeping this place both friendly and infomative and just accept that we have to trust his judgement.

I for one are very grateful for his efforts and the results. If that occasionally means a locked thread, then that’s a price worth paying for what we have here in my opinion.


EIWT Weston

Fine with me, i just don’t know how.

Other than Colm I don’t see many members critisizing Peter. I do not even know WHY anybody should critisize him. The forum is great, and fun. I just wanted to say that most of us are grown up people who can take a sarcastic or ironic comment every now and then. If I was to decide I would let people fight aswell, as long as they don’t get too personal or ugly. And if I had a real “troll” in my forum (which i am not, i hope :-)) – i would just DELETE him.

But to close a thread because I critisize a posting?

300 posts where the last 150 were 2 persons in a “conversation” over whose aircraft is cooler, faster, better. Not very interesting for most people.


The thread was locked because no new information was being posted.

I might unlock it if/when I have nothing better to do and find the time to clean it up a bit.

Off topic posts in the Cirrus Jet thread will be deleted.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

300 posts where the last 150 were 2 persons in a “conversation” over whose aircraft is cooler, faster, better. Not very interesting for most people.

But do you have to read threads that don’t interest you? I never do that. I for one don’t read many of the threads, because there’s a lot of stuff i find completely boring. I agree that many of the postings between Michael and myself were not “informative”, but I think that they should be possible. Michael has never insulted me, i have never insulted him, and that’s the only criteria I could really accept.

I have a general problem with other people telling me what I am allowed to say.

Flyer59 wrote:

But do you have to read threads that don’t interest you? I never do that

I never do that either. Up to a point that thread was interesting though, then it went downhill. I’m just saying, and I’m not surprised it was closed.


I have already agreed that it might not have been too interesting. But it was closed after THIS posting of mine:

Maybe the problem was that there was intention (to prove CAPS didn’t work?) behind posting that picture? That case is not representative, you know that, nevertheless you bring it up again and again. That’s like saying “a Mercedes is not safe, because it loses its wheels” when a mechanic didn’t fasten the bolts. It’s simply not fair to argue against CAPS with that case.

I see nothing unacceptable in this posting, and I was serious. After all when Malte wrote about the “Church of Cirrus” or Achim said that he doesn’t like the “anti CAPS Skygod attitude” – it was not closed.

I am just not comfortable with the way this was handled.

Last Edited by Flyer59 at 20 Oct 17:42

Not wanting to support “either side” I can only regret Peter and David let things go much too far – it had been clear for a long time the “discussion” was going nowhere. The cut came only at a point where it would hurt someone, as it obviously did. Too bad, nobody insisted for pushing things that far. At the contrary, the long silence from most participants ought to have been an indication to the over-zealous.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

I agree with Colm.

The subject had been beaten to death and was turning around in circles with very little objective information. Several people commented on that in the thread including myself. Certain conversations should be held on a forum that starts with P or on COPA.

The relative success of EuroGA and the quality of postings herein speaks for itself and is to Peter’s credit.

31 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top