Food Talk Central debates move to HO

Huh?

1 Like

I’m fine with them staying over there.

When I left CH I started with both sites. Haven’t been back to FTC since the first few weeks they launched.

Sometimes some people should have their own sandbox.

6 Likes

Same here. It’s boring over there, plus there are some loudmouthed posters that I didn’t like on CH and don’t like there either. HO has a ways to go to really get traction, but it seems like it’s moving in a good direction.

6 Likes

The “C” in FTC might just as well stand for California. I’ve cruised over there a few times but can’t abide the puerile, prevalent (“puevalent”? :grin:) use of the “f” key.

1 Like

Exactly. One of the reasons I went and left.

1 Like

I was originally invited and joined there as well as here. Being there is -0- NJ threads and barely any non-LA based conversations there was very little for me to relate to.

If they want to come here that’s great, it would certainly be a welcome boost in members and activities for the LA regions.

1 Like

I love California. I wish the only concern is just “California”

1 Like

Look. People can freely join and leave, just like many of us freely joined and left Chowhound.

No one is stopping them if some of them (or many of them) want to spend time here. We should welcome anyone want to come over here and have a conversation or even just to read. There are great people and jerkasses everywhere. That being said, some of the people over there are more than just loudmouths. They are borderline “toxic”. What I mean by “toxic” is that they directly or indirectly push other people out. Gaining one of those people means losing 10 other posters. We don’t need people like that.

12 Likes

I use both sites: I’m located in the Los Angeles area, so FTC is where I go for L.A.-related stuff. I also read the San Diego posts to keep tabs on what’s happening there.

Most of my time is spent on HO, though. It embodies a lot of what I liked about Chowhound - depth and breadth and the ability to live (and learn) through the experiences of others.

There’s a part of me that would like to see the boards join, because I think we’d end up with a more dynamic environment and be more appealing to someone stumbling across us through a web search or link.

BUT, I don’t know how the personalities of the two sites would mesh. I can imagine a lot of conflict.

4 Likes

I will also say it was good to see so many familiar names from Chow and it would be a pleasure to have them over here contributing to their local and our general boards.

It was also interesting to see one who “was” actively posting here, posting in that thread, warning others about coming here.

It’s truly fascinating how people can have “issues” at multiple forums, yet it’s always the forum and never them.

Anyway I’m surprised that thread was left open for discussion as it seems to indicate this conversation has been taking place over there awhile. Conversely I haven’t heard any rumblings about our members desires to join them, or any other site for that matter, so yeah for us!!!

6 Likes

As usual, you’re right on target. It’s not good enough that someone is going out of their way to organize, maintain and grow a site for them to freely participate in (or not)…

6 Likes

Now, you see the truth of human nature.

1 Like

I’ve been trying like hell to stay out of this discussion, but - and please accept this observation in the neutral-ish spirit in which it is offered - If you say this:

you can’t also say this:

That’s involvement. You’re casting aspersions on the behavior of others, albeit in a very cover-your-ass kind of way. I’m not judging. All my walls are glass, and I walk around barefoot all the time, so I’ve got a lot invested in no one throwing stones in my direction. But those little “not sayin’, just sayin’” comments are the antithesis of non-involvement.

2 Likes

I am not getting your objection. First, those two quotes you have listed for NotJrvedivici are not even from the same thread. Second, just because he wasn’t personally in the middle of a debate, it doesn’t mean he cannot have an opinion of the said situation. If we are talking the same debate, there were only two people in the heat of the debate, but apparently numerous people have already stated their opinions already.

I don’t think it is about covering your ass kind of way. I think it is just being transparent about what we know and not know, and how we reach our conclusion/theory with the available information.

1 Like

I’m 63 & no one has ever accused me of being overly rose colored in my observations. I’m jaded, I’m somewhat cynical and I live in Brooklyn… a trifecta of potential distrust of others’ motives. However, I don’t think that a small group of self important entitled brats represent “human nature”, here or elsewhere. Sometimes it takes major effort to ignore them but mostly its worth it to do so. I’ve met (& continue to meet) some pretty good people on the boards (& even in person).

4 Likes

CK, thanks for responding.

I too agree small h, I really don’t understand your point. You are selectively quoting from two completely different threads and conversations I was having. The two incidents quoted are not directly involved with each other, so I’m not sure how you are trying to fairly compare them when they are not remotely in the same context of conversation.

I understand you are just stating your “observation” and trying to maintain a neutral-ish spirit so as a courtesy to same I will try to respond or explain to the best of my ability.

With regard to the first line you quoted, I’m referring to a disagreement which took place between two other posters, I was not involved in the disagreement in any way. Now I suppose since I’ve offered a blanket apology in an attempt to sooth the wounds created by these two individuals, and hopefully get them to reconsider their participation on the board, sure now I’m involved.

Regarding the second quote, which again is from a completely different thread and conversation, I’m talking about a completely different person than those involved in the first quote. In the second quote I’m stating my observation(s) about someone who no longer posts on this board. (I don’t know if it was voluntary withdrawal or involuntary - either way it’s none of my business) Again, if you feel me stating my observation(s) of a persons behavior(s) on multiple forums, ok I’m involved, again I’m not making any claim of involvement or non involvement in this particular discussion.

Now to quote you!! (lol) [quote=“small_h, post:15, topic:5259”]
But those little “not sayin’, just sayin’” comments are the antithesis of non-involvement.
[/quote]

I didn’t say either of those statements, so again I’m sorry, I don’t know what you are referring to.

I hope this helps clarify things for you, I know you said this was a neutral spirited comment(s) and it’s taken as such.

Regards,

I accidentally included my response to you with my response to CK below (or above perhaps, not sure where this is going to land in the thread) . You can read it there.

This explains why I like you!

Ah, I may have overspoken a little, but what I meant is that many people do not know that free things are not free. There are a lot of efforts and money behind the scene. For example, the site owners for both FTC and HO have invested money and more importantly time and efforts in creating and maintaining the sites.

I don’t think many people appreciate this fact.

4 Likes
“Food is a pretty good prism through which to view humanity.”

― Jonathan Gold