Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 16:24:32 GMT
Mtb-dildo.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 31, 2017 18:34:31 GMT
I haven't looked but he seems to fall into a category of poster that gets away with spouting obnoxious nasty bollocks, often directly and shamelessly directed at an individual ( I'm thinking Tony when he first harressed by cart 4-5 years ago) by either being a helpful plumber in his case or occasionally posting pretty pictures of a canal (doghouse). That calculation leaves them the "what exactly do you contribute to the forum?"" angle with a ready made counter. I'm more inclined, and I bet so are most of us, to appreciate the social/positive content of posts than this cynical and deliberate sort of on line character building. For a start they begin with the premise that if they say it, it must be correct. That's bordering psychopathic by many measures. Or in common parlance, wankers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 19:19:22 GMT
I haven't looked but he seems to fall into a category of poster that gets away with spouting obnoxious nasty bollocks, often directly and shamelessly directed at an individual ( I'm thinking Tony when he first harressed by cart 4-5 years ago) by either being a helpful plumber in his case or occasionally posting pretty pictures of a canal (doghouse). That calculation leaves them the "what exactly do you contribute to the forum?"" angle with a ready made counter. I'm more inclined, and I bet so are most of us, to appreciate the social/positive content of posts than this cynical and deliberate sort of on line character building. For a start they begin with the premise that if they say it, it must be correct. That's bordering psychopathic by many measures. Or in common parlance, wankers. From some of his posts during the modgate affair you'd get the impression CWF wouldn't survive without his financial contribution.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 31, 2017 19:21:56 GMT
I haven't looked but he seems to fall into a category of poster that gets away with spouting obnoxious nasty bollocks, often directly and shamelessly directed at an individual ( I'm thinking Tony when he first harressed by cart 4-5 years ago) by either being a helpful plumber in his case or occasionally posting pretty pictures of a canal (doghouse). That calculation leaves them the "what exactly do you contribute to the forum?"" angle with a ready made counter. I'm more inclined, and I bet so are most of us, to appreciate the social/positive content of posts than this cynical and deliberate sort of on line character building. For a start they begin with the premise that if they say it, it must be correct. That's bordering psychopathic by many measures. Or in common parlance, wankers. From some of his posts during the modgate affair you'd get the impression CWF wouldn't survive without his financial contribution. He gets away with it by making kicking him on the bollocks questionable. A little doubt goes a long way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 21:50:49 GMT
I think frangar is the new "twat" on cwdf. He's cruising down south and hasn't shuttup moaning all the time he's been down here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 21:53:26 GMT
I think frangar is the new "twat" on cwdf. He's cruising down south and hasn't shuttup moaning all the time he's been down here. Gareth was always a wanker so I'm not sure what's new.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 17, 2017 22:10:16 GMT
"As Nick says, people get banned for breaching the forum rules" - unless you're a moderator who starts a political thread, when bannings were given for 'no political content'. I was banned from CWDF because I voted for UKIP in the General Election (UKIP being the only political party opposing eu membership) and then, the final straw for Daniel, the "site owner", I voted for Brexit. I wouldn't be remotely interested in contributing to a forum which the "site owner" uses to promote his own political agenda, and who bans anybody who does not agree with them because he is incapable of rebutting their argument.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 18, 2017 6:57:25 GMT
My bet is you got the heave-ho for starting The Situation in Calais thread. I am also betting the "site owner" has not housed one single "refugee" in his boat.
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Apr 18, 2017 7:49:26 GMT
My bet is you got the heave-ho for starting The Situation in Calais thread. I am also betting the "site owner" has not housed one single "refugee" in his boat. Nor have many others of the "save refugees" crowd I imagine. Phil
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2017 8:09:20 GMT
"As Nick says, people get banned for breaching the forum rules" - unless you're a moderator who starts a political thread, when bannings were given for 'no political content'. I was banned from CWDF because I voted for UKIP in the General Election (UKIP being the only political party opposing eu membership) and then, the final straw for Daniel, the "site owner", I voted for Brexit. I wouldn't be remotely interested in contributing to a forum which the "site owner" uses to promote his own political agenda, and who bans anybody who does not agree with them because he is incapable of rebutting their argument. No you were banned for what was seen as your racist views. You took a different view on the Calais migrant thing from the forum mainstream, pointing out the problems for truckers and putting their needs ahead of the migrants. Which was perfectly reasonable IMO, if a little unempathetic. But the liberal fascists who cannot accept any view other than their own righteous one, took exception to it and you were labelled racist, you reacted by using stronger terms and it rather escalated in a tit for tat battle. But I don't think CWDF is unusual in having a hunting pack of liberal self righteous fascists, as soon as one tries to express a non-mainstream view on here, the exact same thing happens although of course the outcome isn't a ban.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 18, 2017 8:25:17 GMT
Especially of course if your fishing for a reaction, because your board and looking for some sport.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 18, 2017 8:27:14 GMT
I was banned from CWDF because I voted for UKIP in the General Election (UKIP being the only political party opposing eu membership) and then, the final straw for Daniel, the "site owner", I voted for Brexit. I wouldn't be remotely interested in contributing to a forum which the "site owner" uses to promote his own political agenda, and who bans anybody who does not agree with them because he is incapable of rebutting their argument. No you were banned for what was seen as your racist views. You took a different view on the Calais migrant thing from the forum mainstream, pointing out the problems for truckers and putting their needs ahead of the migrants. Which was perfectly reasonable IMO, if a little unempathetic. But the liberal fascists who cannot accept any view other than their own righteous one, took exception to it and you were labelled racist, you reacted by using stronger terms and it rather escalated in a tit for tat battle. But I don't think CWDF is unusual in having a hunting pack of liberal self righteous fascists, as soon as one tries to express a non-mainstream view on here, the exact same thing happens although of course the outcome isn't a ban. Actually, it's slightly more complicated than that, when I was actually banned, i.e. had my account deleted, I had not posted on CWDF for over three months but had my account deleted, along with several other members, because I was a member of Thunderboat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 8:59:17 GMT
Surely if one "tries to propose a non-mainstream view" anywhere, by it's nature one must expect to hear opposing voices, as being "non-mainstream" your's will be a minority view.
To then band the opposing voices into a single group is just poetic licence, with your own choice of descriptive term thrown in.
I'm sure we are all old enough and, I hope, wise enough to accept the situation, that on occasion the world will not agree with us.
I believe it is in the nature of some individuals to positively seek out this kind of polarisation.
Despite the bad language (very occasionally now) it is the honesty of this place that, in my view makes it the more 'grown-up'.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2017 9:10:54 GMT
Surely if one "tries to propose a non-mainstream view" anywhere, by it's nature one must expect to hear opposing voices, as being "non-mainstream" your's will be a minority view. To then band the opposing voices into a single group is just poetic licence, with your own choice of descriptive term thrown in. I'm sure we are all old enough and, I hope, wise enough to accept the situation, that on occasion the world will not agree with us. I believe it is in the nature of some individuals to positively seek out this kind of polarisation. Despite the bad language (very occasionally now) it is the honesty of this place that, in my view makes it the more 'grown-up'. Rog Of course a non-mainstream view is likely to be met with opposition, but my point is regarding the nature of that opposition. Such opposition should be constructed so as to present the mainstream opinion clearly logically and with justification - the aim of course being to persuade the "non-mainstream" poster to align with the majority view. But all to often it is just "you're stupid" or "you don't have exactly the same life experience as I do so you're not entitled to an opinion", or "you're a rascist/mysoginist/homophobe/etc, (and that is the full extent of my argument against you).", or "I haven't actually read your post properly, but I despise it and therefore you, anyway".
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 18, 2017 9:13:29 GMT
No you were banned for what was seen as your racist views. You took a different view on the Calais migrant thing from the forum mainstream, pointing out the problems for truckers and putting their needs ahead of the migrants. Which was perfectly reasonable IMO, if a little unempathetic. But the liberal fascists who cannot accept any view other than their own righteous one, took exception to it and you were labelled racist, you reacted by using stronger terms and it rather escalated in a tit for tat battle. But I don't think CWDF is unusual in having a hunting pack of liberal self righteous fascists, as soon as one tries to express a non-mainstream view on here, the exact same thing happens although of course the outcome isn't a ban. Actually, it's slightly more complicated than that, when I was actually banned, i.e. had my account deleted, I had not posted on CWDF for over three months but had my account deleted, along with several other members, because I was a member of Thunderboat. Yes there was a time lag, but I think you had got yourself onto the hate list for your (allegedly) racist views, and once the momentum for a mass banning gained traction, pack courage won out, you were a gonner.
|
|