|
Post by smileypete on Oct 27, 2016 11:48:27 GMT
i just think it's yet another example of inconsistency of moderation on the other channel. It seems if your name begins with m and you've got "the" in your forum name you can say what you like with immunity. Try setting up an account as Mott the Hoople and test the theory Maybe Nick could return as Monster Munch!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 14:51:15 GMT
Oh dear. Looks like LM is suggesting nick may have sent naughty pm's!
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Oct 27, 2016 15:01:46 GMT
Congratulations Nick!
I dare say you certainly had to work a lot harder to get banned than the rest of us. To your credit, you hung in there and got it done!
We have been saving a seat for you in the Los Desapareados Club.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 27, 2016 15:04:47 GMT
I was thinking about this, this afternoon, and my theory is this: Dan finds Canalworld rather boring, especially Athy's jokes, and is in fact a regular lurker on Thunderboat where it's all excitement and razzmatazz. He was somewhat distressed to see Mr Helicopter savagely attack an elderly gentleman on the batteries re-charging thread and thought "I'll 'ave him - I'll come up with a new term - ah, yes, 'Disturbing Influence' will do, cheeky bugger also giving me advice on how to run my own forum!" With a wave of the wand of D Hutch, Nick gets a thorough kick in the crutch! Thumbs up, graham!
|
|
|
Post by bills on Oct 27, 2016 15:35:34 GMT
So - you think Graham is Dan's sock puppet then? Interesting theory.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 27, 2016 16:07:04 GMT
Well, that was a bit warped. No, I meant, as the Finns say: "If you shout into the forest, the forest will shout back". Reap what you sow, and all that. I think Nick has been trying to burst too many balloons with his needle, and one went *POP!*
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Oct 27, 2016 16:09:08 GMT
Good effort, Nick. Round of applause here.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 27, 2016 16:20:52 GMT
Oh dear. Looks like LM is suggesting nick may have sent naughty pm's! Yes it does rather read that way, doesn't it. For the avoidance of doubt, the only PM's to the site crew have been about mod style. I had a mod intervention from LM telling me to remove my statement or else there would be <various threats> and it had to be done quick to avoid sanction. I replied within 5 minutes pointing out that she hadn't told me which statement we were talking about. No mods on line by then! An hour later she came back and said I was to stop saying that the mass cull was due to LC running amok. I said could she point me to specific posts she wanted editing since I was driving the boat at the time. Later James came on and was perfectly reasonable, non-confrontational and we found agreement. After another pause for thought I sent them another message pointing out that James' style was good for getting people on side and was how it should be done, LM's was aggressive threatening and confrontational and would likely put people's backs up and result in being ineffective. I then was told by a couple of people that I'd personally insulted Jill and Gemma on here. I have never shied from criticising their ability as moderators but didn't think I'd personally insulted them. Both the "couple of people" felt that by participating in threads where they had been insulted by others, I was guilty by association, which I think is bonkers! I had a trawl though my posts, I just found a few minor things but anyway, I PMd All the mods and said that whilst I had certainly said they were poor mods, it hadn't been my intention to insult them personally and if I had, I apologised unreservedly. No reply to that of course! So the only things sent by PM were continuations of what I'd said in open forum about their style of writing, and an apology if I had inadvertently insulted them as people (as opposed to them as mods) on here. Anyway I've emailed Dan telling him that I feel Lady M's comments are borderline libellous (because she hints and leave assumptions to the audience, rather than saying it directly). Perhaps she didn't intentionally mean to implicate me, but that's certainly how it came out. If I have sent any naughty PMs to anyone I challenge them to be put in open forum (and thus obviously, give my permission). But there aren't any of course, because that's not my style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:39:52 GMT
Oh dear. Looks like LM is suggesting nick may have sent naughty pm's! Yes it does rather read that way, doesn't it. For the avoidance of doubt, the only PM's to the site crew have been about mod style. I had a mod intervention from LM telling me to remove my statement or else there would be <various threats> and it had to be done quick to avoid sanction. I replied within 5 minutes pointing out that she hadn't told me which statement we were talking about. No mods on line by then! An hour later she came back and said I was to stop saying that the mass cull was due to LC running amok. I said could she point me to specific posts she wanted editing since I was driving the boat at the time. Later James came on and was perfectly reasonable, non-confrontational and we found agreement. After another pause for thought I sent them another message pointing out that James' style was good for getting people on side and was how it should be done, LM's was aggressive threatening and confrontational and would likely put people's backs up and result in being ineffective. I then was told by a couple of people that I'd personally insulted Jill and Gemma on here. I have never shied from criticising their ability as moderators but didn't think I'd personally insulted them. Both the "couple of people" felt that by participating in threads where they had been insulted by others, I was guilty by association, which I think is bonkers! I had a trawl though my posts, I just found a few minor things but anyway, I PMd All the mods and said that whilst I had certainly said they were poor mods, it hadn't been my intention to insult them personally and if I had, I apologised unreservedly. No reply to that of course! So the only things sent by PM were continuations of what I'd said in open forum about their style of writing, and an apology if I had inadvertently insulted them as people (as opposed to them as mods) on here. Anyway I've emailed Dan telling him that I feel Lady M's comments are borderline libellous (because she hints and leave assumptions to the audience, rather than saying it directly). Perhaps she didn't intentionally mean to implicate me, but that's certainly how it came out. If I have sent any naughty PMs to anyone I challenge them to be put in open forum (and thus obviously, give my permission). But there aren't any of course, because that's not my style. I think the repeated mod comments over there about reporting actions to the police is an own goal and just putting people off using the forum. Especially as there is nothing stopping the mods or Daniel from editing posts to stitch up any 'undesirables'. That is why I believe they should formally delete any intellectual property generated by banned members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 16:58:50 GMT
Oh dear. Looks like LM is suggesting nick may have sent naughty pm's! Yes it does rather read that way, doesn't it. For the avoidance of doubt, the only PM's to the site crew have been about mod style. I had a mod intervention from LM telling me to remove my statement or else there would be <various threats> and it had to be done quick to avoid sanction. I replied within 5 minutes pointing out that she hadn't told me which statement we were talking about. No mods on line by then! An hour later she came back and said I was to stop saying that the mass cull was due to LC running amok. I said could she point me to specific posts she wanted editing since I was driving the boat at the time. Later James came on and was perfectly reasonable, non-confrontational and we found agreement. After another pause for thought I sent them another message pointing out that James' style was good for getting people on side and was how it should be done, LM's was aggressive threatening and confrontational and would likely put people's backs up and result in being ineffective. I then was told by a couple of people that I'd personally insulted Jill and Gemma on here. I have never shied from criticising their ability as moderators but didn't think I'd personally insulted them. Both the "couple of people" felt that by participating in threads where they had been insulted by others, I was guilty by association, which I think is bonkers! I had a trawl though my posts, I just found a few minor things but anyway, I PMd All the mods and said that whilst I had certainly said they were poor mods, it hadn't been my intention to insult them personally and if I had, I apologised unreservedly. No reply to that of course! So the only things sent by PM were continuations of what I'd said in open forum about their style of writing, and an apology if I had inadvertently insulted them as people (as opposed to them as mods) on here. Anyway I've emailed Dan telling him that I feel Lady M's comments are borderline libellous (because she hints and leave assumptions to the audience, rather than saying it directly). Perhaps she didn't intentionally mean to implicate me, but that's certainly how it came out. If I have sent any naughty PMs to anyone I challenge them to be put in open forum (and thus obviously, give my permission). But there aren't any of course, because that's not my style. No need for explanation. I think one thing gained from all this mess, is an insight into who, or what some people are, and LM has certainly nailed her laundry to the line. Although you are at times an annoying cocky shit, I know you are not malicious in any way.
|
|
|
Post by jimcheese on Oct 27, 2016 17:10:48 GMT
It's obvious - anyone with an autonomous mind is not allowed. You will all be fluffy bunny types who meet to drink and talk about the old days and wear sandals made from lentils. You will also bow to those superior beings who drive stupidly deep botes who wobble from one fecking boring rally to the other having the same experience 100 times instead of 100 experiences. You get to be super daddy if you can raise steam within 3 hours before you set off. Some points are gained if your bote does not sink because it's made from wafer thin old metal or wood dust.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 27, 2016 17:28:03 GMT
That is a good point. I bought a canal boat because I wanted to live on a boat and canals are benign compared to the sea. I have some passing interest in the history and Heritage but the main thing for me is to live quietly and cheaply in nice environments.
|
|
|
Post by jimcheese on Oct 27, 2016 17:31:22 GMT
The thing is, well directed criticism is hard to take but invaluable. Free consultancy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 17:32:25 GMT
Going back to the OP.
Is there something else going on like the 'owner' of this forum is in cahoots with the owner of cwdf and there is some sort if effort to move users to a forum which can contain advertising ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 17:36:26 GMT
Going back to the OP. Is there something else going on like the 'owner' of this forum is in cahoots with the owner of cwdf and there is some sort if effort to move users to a forum which can contain advertising ? Have you shit yet?
|
|