|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 19:20:53 GMT
Oh - why were you banned from CWDF then? I've never had any warnings, but one short ban when I kept telling Dan that his forum was going down the pan and it was his fault. Nick everything is always someone else's fault it is never yours. You were banned because you posted, note you posted not Dan, in a way that broke the rules. There were warning posts even if you did not get a personalised direct warning. No doubt, but then the rules were structured to be entirely flexible! I don't say whose fault it was - no-one's really, just a conflict of styles and principles. There were posts asking me to stop telling the truth as I saw it, but the earlier discussion was, I believe, about formal warnings of which I received none.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 19:23:17 GMT
As always Nick you assume you know something I know why John was banned, but then again I was following the banter between him a Phil when it happened True, and to this day I don't understand why I only got 2 warning points while John got the big Finito Benito, ridiculous really because we were only having a larf Phil As I implied earlier, it was because of his general demeanour over the years, as opposed to that specific thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 20:10:24 GMT
Have you not realised, even after six unopposed posts, that you may actually be the one 'out of step'? Sometimes, to say nothing and be thought a fool, is better than to speak and confirm everyone's belief. I enjoy your contributions, but on this occasion, the writing is on the wall my friend Rog
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 3, 2017 20:10:49 GMT
You know nick you really learn to stop when you are wrong. Put simply of those that managed to vote 90% voted for independence. With the input of the spanish government over 750,000 votes were ceased and not counted, polling stations forcibly closed etc. But whatever you like to say or twist 90% of those that voted voted for independence. Now go back in your cage. How do you know 90% of voters who voted said yes? Because the people organising it with a view to getting that result, said so! How gullible! I thought you were a lawyer? Do you always believe what someone with a vested interest says? Oh dear I believe provable evidence not guesses. The one thing I strongly suspect is that if it was only 70% or less the news will soon have it. No I think the figure published is real, and I think the Catalan government could not believe their luck when the count gave them that figure. I spend my days accepting, note the word, what people who have a vested interest say.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 3, 2017 20:18:57 GMT
Nick everything is always someone else's fault it is never yours. You were banned because you posted, note you posted not Dan, in a way that broke the rules. There were warning posts even if you did not get a personalised direct warning. No doubt, but then the rules were structured to be entirely flexible! I don't say whose fault it was - no-one's really, just a conflict of styles and principles. There were posts asking me to stop telling the truth as I saw it, but the earlier discussion was, I believe, about formal warnings of which I received none. The rules were not structured to be entirely flexible. The flexibility was in the way they were enforced. When needed they could and were enforced strictly. Telling the truth as you say you saw is is the same as a witness in court who twist things to their advantage, which is what you did. I know you posted stuff that was incorrect and used stuff that was not verified. In court if the case was important enough witnesses end up in another court charged with perjury. You just got a short period of not being able to post, not banned. So the blame is all yours and nothing to do with Dan he just enforce the rules after many people had asked you to stop as he was supposed to do. In fact he may not have done it personally but one of the other admins.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 3, 2017 20:22:19 GMT
True, and to this day I don't understand why I only got 2 warning points while John got the big Finito Benito, ridiculous really because we were only having a larf Phil As I implied earlier, it was because of his general demeanour over the years, as opposed to that specific thread. nick you have I assume evidence of that, please post it otherwise I will believe it to be untrue. Nothing in the entire time I have seen John's posts leads me to believe it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 20:22:22 GMT
If that were the case then it's a bloody mystery as to why you have never been permanently banned from there.... Probably because I am capable of stringing an argument together without resorting to insults as the first step. The issue under discussion was rudeness Nick. My point was, you were rude on cwdf and for some reason you were not permanently banned for being so. In my opinion the mods on there were incredibly inconsistent so you escaped a permanent ban, others did not.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 3, 2017 20:24:24 GMT
As always Nick you assume you know something I know why John was banned, but then again I was following the banter between him a Phil when it happened You don't know why John was banned. You may have been viewing some "final straw" thread, but behind that were a multiplicity of ill tempered posts attacking anyone who had a different viewpoint from him. Just like in this thread. I don't normally swear ..... but you really do talk a load of fucking bollocks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 20:42:16 GMT
According to BBC news Catalonia are set to declare independence 'within day's
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Oct 3, 2017 20:47:42 GMT
According to BBC news Catalonia are set to declare independence 'within day's Good, the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 22:35:06 GMT
You don't know why John was banned. You may have been viewing some "final straw" thread, but behind that were a multiplicity of ill tempered posts attacking anyone who had a different viewpoint from him. Just like in this thread. I don't normally swear ..... but you really do talk a load of fucking bollocks ...which rather proves the point. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 22:41:13 GMT
I don't normally swear ..... but you really do talk a load of fucking bollocks ...which rather proves the point. Thank you. A point has been proven, indeed it has.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 22:41:18 GMT
No doubt, but then the rules were structured to be entirely flexible! I don't say whose fault it was - no-one's really, just a conflict of styles and principles. There were posts asking me to stop telling the truth as I saw it, but the earlier discussion was, I believe, about formal warnings of which I received none. The rules were not structured to be entirely flexible. The flexibility was in the way they were enforced. When needed they could and were enforced strictly. Telling the truth as you say you saw is is the same as a witness in court who twist things to their advantage, which is what you did. I know you posted stuff that was incorrect and used stuff that was not verified. In court if the case was important enough witnesses end up in another court charged with perjury. You just got a short period of not being able to post, not banned. So the blame is all yours and nothing to do with Dan he just enforce the rules after many people had asked you to stop as he was supposed to do. In fact he may not have done it personally but one of the other admins. The rules were structured to be flexible, in particular the "no disruptive posting" one. Any post that doesn't toe the party line or disagrees with someone (in the management team) could be considered disruptive. As to the rest of your waffle, could I point out that the forum is not a court.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 22:43:29 GMT
According to BBC news Catalonia are set to declare independence 'within day's I bet the organisers will be arrested for breaching the constitution. And being reasonable about it, you can't honestly claim it's what the majority want when only 37% voted for it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 3, 2017 22:44:19 GMT
As I implied earlier, it was because of his general demeanour over the years, as opposed to that specific thread. nick you have I assume evidence of that, please post it otherwise I will believe it to be untrue. Nothing in the entire time I have seen John's posts leads me to believe it. Waffle.
|
|