Falklands/Malvinas User Group

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

Due to some lobbying it has been proposed that the Falklands Topic be brought back.

After some bandying about it has been decided that it MAY be brought back as a User Group.

The rules will be simple, anyone wishing to join the User Group should sign up here, the rules for joining will be as follows:

You must have 50 posts minimum to join.

There will be absolutely no flaming allowed.

Facts will be discussed and backed up with references.

No Falklands/Malvinas related material will be discussed outside of the user group.

Anyone breaking the rules will be deleted from the User Group immediately and anyone taking arguments into the normal Forum will likewise be deleted from the User Group and also recieve a warning.

This will allow those that want to genuinely discuss this subject to do so in an area where it will not infringe on those who solely wish to discuss WW2.

You have two weeks to sign up and it will only go ahead if 8-10 guys want it to, any less and it wont take place.

Cheers

Editted to add, I forgot to mention that a User Group is invisible on the Forum to non-User-Group members for those of you that didn’t know

Thanks to Fluffy and Dani for pointing this out.

#2

Sign me up - for some reason I do like watching car crashes happen.
Not sure I’ll contribute very much though unless someone’s really barking up the wrong forest.

#3

I’d quite like to sign up, even if I’m mostly learning from it.

#4

go for it :lol:

#5

Buggrit ! Go on, I’ll have a squizz too - if only to see Erwin’s next guise.

#6

Facts will be discussed and backed up with references.
which references? British? Argentines? Both?
:arrow:

#7

Bang me on too, Firefly. And I think Eagle will want in.

Any references will be accepted condor, as long as they are good references. In the past Erwin and co have attempted to use libreopinions and even other forum chats as evidence. All we ask is for good solid references that are not full of holes.

i.e. Erwin, Arkantos and Irish Duck laboured on about Invincible being sunk, purely on some pap from a site about the attack and the worst photo gallery job you have ever seen!!! despite several references to the contray, that were solid.

#8

What the hell, count me in!

#9

#10

Any valid reference from any nation on Earth will be fine.

#11

Is that a sign me up? Or not?

#12

Is that a sign me up? Or not?[/quote]

I think so? :?

#13

Nope. I’m afraid I lost patience with the whole Falklands thing a while ago when it became clear that certain (ex) site members weren’t interested in a debate but just wanted to wave their national flag without going to the trouble of backing up their posts with credible references.

Personally, I think re-opening the debate will not end well on a WW2 site, hence the can-of-worms graphic.

However, as you said in an earlier post, we can now leave that section to get on with the discussion out of the way of the rest of us.

I may ask to join the group IF, and only if, it becomes clear that folk are posting information that is at all odds with the facts as they seem to be fairly well established. Claims that British officers used Ghurkas as cannon fodder are not to be tolerated without some evidence (and I know they were stamped on by the mods at the time) and that the Argentinian Airforce sank the INVINCIBLE and there was a huge cover up makes a mockery of this site.

I only say this (and it bears on the way the Horten thread is running) because I believe this site to be a very useful and mostly accurate resource for those interested in WW2.

If information is posted as fact, when I have references that vary from that information, then I feel I should post in response. Otherwise, the value of the site as an information resource is lessened, and things that are really only an opinion may be judged as fact by the lay reader.

The great benefit of t’internet for research is it’s accesibility. The great problem is that it is usually not peer-reviewed so as resource it’s suspect. I believe we post here as a form of peer-review.

A little off-topic perhaps, but I felt it should be said.

#14

FluffyBunnyGB, may I remaind you that the usergroups are hidden if you aren’t member of them.

So, if you don’t want to be bothered by off-ww2 discussions (and on-Falkland/Malvinas war) just avoid signing-in. You will not see anything. Only the users subscribed will see the section and will be able to post.

#15

Thanks Dani, I hadn’t appreciated that.

If the posts contained are not visible to the World at large, then they cannot detract from the value of the site. Vide my post above.

My concern is that when people post crap, it detracts from the good stuff and may also give extra credence to the crap.

Kind regards

Fluffy

#16

Count me in, if only to see what percentage of the posted “facts” actually bear up to scrutiny.

#17

My fault, I should have mentioned it and didnt think about guys not appreciating what a User Group is, I have remedied my above post to reflect this.

#18

Sorry, but it is not serious.
In some things, I seconded you, but I have to ask
What I’m going to learn, or just receive insults for the actions or
of posting what I live there?
If it going to be serious, what you said, not necesarily have any animous
like everybody see.
I respect you, but you are “open the umbrella” before its rain.

#19

Recommend a ruling that ejects a member from the user group for starting flame wars, say 1 week at a time. As it is only from the user group, it could be used a bit more aggressively than other bannings, suspensions currently in place.

#20

As I said, anyone who does not abide by the rules will instantly be excluded from the user group. No warnings or anything.