|
Post by smileypete on Oct 29, 2016 11:35:36 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it! Doesn't look that way to me, LM clearly states ex members and you're still a member as such. It does cast aspersions on the earlier exiles though! She could always name and shame, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 29, 2016 11:39:48 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it! Doesn't look that way to me, LM clearly states ex members and you're still a member as such. It does cast aspersions on the earlier exiles though! She could always name and shame, I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. Bloody right I wouldn't have any objections !!! There have been a lot of nasturtiums cast about the desaparacidos over there, some of which have royally pissed me off
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 11:52:55 GMT
Yes you do like the dramatic, think you should change your name to Drama Queen. and that could be one of the problems you go barmy about things that don't really matter, and that is where we clash. I think you are being very unfair. A Drama Queen would not read a post in the technical section, realise that the person with a problem was quite close to where he was moored, and set off within minutes to see if he could assist. That is the sort of person that anyone with any sense would want to keep as a member of their forum, and listen to when it was obvious that they were unhappy about the change of ethos. (I use a different name on CWDF and have posted very little, so none of you will have a clue as to who I am. As an observer I am finding this whole episode fascinating.) Nor would one drive 400 miles too help a boater
|
|
|
Post by mayalld on Oct 29, 2016 12:12:13 GMT
These are LM's two posts in question. Taken together, in replies to direct questions about me, there does seem to be an implication that I have done something wrong via a medium such as PMs. But it is only an implication. Neverthess enough to make people think I had done something, since they've said it! No defamation there at all. In the first she is just saying if you judge on what you are told and see you might not be getting all the story. She has just politely pushed the question away. It obvious from PaulC's post that he has been pushing this PaulC continues to push. The second starts by saying "I'm not discussing individuals" and goes on to discuss an example from the past about exmembers, in answer to the question asked "Does this mean you might also ban someone from what they say in private..." Now the answer to the question is a yes, and that is I believe covered in the rules. As I understand it the allegation against yourself is disruption, that could be either by not piping down when asked on threads, even if that is a generalised request or by piling too many PMs/emails into the admin team. Simply actions that disrupt the efficient running of the forum by the staff. I don't think you would get anywhere with it. The first is a generalised answer and the second is specific "I am not discussing individuals" and give an answer based on something that happened in the past and importantly not linked to the present. I think she saw the trap and circumnavigated it nicely. Well several thought all come down to the same thing, I will post them all. It is what I think. Well I read the post as a VERY clear insinuation that Nick had sent messages to the mods that he hadn't mentioned when telling people he had been banned. If Nick was less than honest about the reason for the ban, then it would make me think badly of him, so that post is clearly defamatory. If they said it about me, they would get 24 hours to retract and a take-down notice. Actually, forget the "if". I have been there. They have previously declined to remove a defamatory comment about me and given me a 2 week suspension for threatening a take-down notice. I sent the notice to the isp, and the content was removed.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Oct 29, 2016 12:16:15 GMT
No defamation there at all. In the first she is just saying if you judge on what you are told and see you might not be getting all the story. She has just politely pushed the question away. It obvious from PaulC's post that he has been pushing this PaulC continues to push. The second starts by saying "I'm not discussing individuals" and goes on to discuss an example from the past about exmembers, in answer to the question asked "Does this mean you might also ban someone from what they say in private..." Now the answer to the question is a yes, and that is I believe covered in the rules. As I understand it the allegation against yourself is disruption, that could be either by not piping down when asked on threads, even if that is a generalised request or by piling too many PMs/emails into the admin team. Simply actions that disrupt the efficient running of the forum by the staff. I don't think you would get anywhere with it. The first is a generalised answer and the second is specific "I am not discussing individuals" and give an answer based on something that happened in the past and importantly not linked to the present. I think she saw the trap and circumnavigated it nicely. Well several thought all come down to the same thing, I will post them all. It is what I think. Well I read the post as a VERY clear insinuation that Nick had sent messages to the mods that he hadn't mentioned when telling people he had been banned. If Nick was less than honest about the reason for the ban, then it would make me think badly of him, so that post is clearly defamatory. If they said it about me, they would get 24 hours to retract and a take-down notice. Actually, forget the "if". I have been there. They have previously declined to remove a defamatory comment about me and given me a 2 week suspension for threatening a take-down notice. I sent the notice to the isp, and the content was removed. Well said - agreed on all points.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 12:31:40 GMT
Well I read the post as a VERY clear insinuation that Nick had sent messages to the mods that he hadn't mentioned when telling people he had been banned. If Nick was less than honest about the reason for the ban, then it would make me think badly of him, so that post is clearly defamatory. If they said it about me, they would get 24 hours to retract and a take-down notice. Actually, forget the "if". I have been there. They have previously declined to remove a defamatory comment about me and given me a 2 week suspension for threatening a take-down notice. I sent the notice to the isp, and the content was removed. Well said - agreed on all points. Well I hear its our friend and friendship and emotion are getting in. I don't agree and would be interested what Defamation lawyer says
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 12:51:39 GMT
To be honest I have to agree with graham. But the point for me is that if the situation were reversed and I'd unintentionally implied such a thing, I would have been upset and clarified the situation immediately. That she has chosen not to do that, and that Dan has not responded to my request to charge/clarify the point, shows clear intent to mislead to my detriment, even though it is probably not within the scope of "formal" defamation.
So the whole thing says far more about them than it does about me.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 12:57:33 GMT
To be honest I have to agree with graham. But the point for me is that if the situation were reversed and I'd unintentionally implied such a thing, I would have been upset and clarified the situation immediately. That she has chosen not to do that, and that Dan has not responded to my request to charge/clarify the point, shows clear intent to mislead to my detriment, even though it is probably not within the scope of "formal" defamation. So the whole thing says far more about them than it does about me. I don't know when you sent the email and to which address. It could be very possible it has not been got to or that anything like that now is only going to Daniel and he has yet to see it.
|
|
|
Post by mildred on Oct 29, 2016 13:00:10 GMT
I think you are being very unfair. A Drama Queen would not read a post in the technical section, realise that the person with a problem was quite close to where he was moored, and set off within minutes to see if he could assist. That is the sort of person that anyone with any sense would want to keep as a member of their forum, and listen to when it was obvious that they were unhappy about the change of ethos. (I use a different name on CWDF and have posted very little, so none of you will have a clue as to who I am. As an observer I am finding this whole episode fascinating.) Well obviously I have a clue as to who you are! Anyway, thanks for the support. I don't think you do. I'm not the person that you went to help. I just remember reading the thread and thinking how kind you were. Likewise Nightwatch and Peterboat who have gone out of their way to help Miss Max.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 13:37:13 GMT
Well obviously I have a clue as to who you are! Anyway, thanks for the support. I don't think you do. I'm not the person that you went to help. I just remember reading the thread and thinking how kind you were. Likewise Nightwatch and Peterboat who have gone out of their way to help Miss Max. Oh, OK. Good memory!
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 29, 2016 13:41:07 GMT
To be honest I have to agree with graham. But the point for me is that if the situation were reversed and I'd unintentionally implied such a thing, I would have been upset and clarified the situation immediately. That she has chosen not to do that, and that Dan has not responded to my request to charge/clarify the point, shows clear intent to mislead to my detriment, even though it is probably not within the scope of "formal" defamation. So the whole thing says far more about them than it does about me. I don't know when you sent the email and to which address. It could be very possible it has not been got to or that anything like that now is only going to Daniel and he has yet to see it. The sitehost@canalworld.net one. He'd already replied to an email about it but asked for links to the specific posts. These were sent to him at 8am yesterday, which I would have thought was long enough ago for him to do something if he were intending to.
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Oct 29, 2016 13:52:39 GMT
I don't know when you sent the email and to which address. It could be very possible it has not been got to or that anything like that now is only going to Daniel and he has yet to see it. The sitehost@canalworld.net one. He'd already replied to an email about it but asked for links to the specific posts. These were sent to him at 8am yesterday, which I would have thought was long enough ago for him to do something if he were intending to. OK, he was last on at 3.28PM yesterday, no idea how long but yesterday was a work day, at my guess so not long. Technically under the Act etc he has 48 hours excluding weekends, bank holidays etc. or it could run up to 5 days in some circumstances, can't remember at the moment. Now did he get through the PMs which would logically be his first stop and deal with them, it is possible he has yet to read it yet. I know it annoys you but it is another bit of agro on his plate on top of all the other agro. Think if I was him I might be heading for my boat (if I had one grrh) or for the girl friend and some relaxation.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 29, 2016 14:11:01 GMT
"I use a different name on CWDF and have posted very little"
Welcome, Dan!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 29, 2016 14:15:39 GMT
In Other News: Palestine and Israel have declared a ceasefire, whilst they sit round computers to read this thread...
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Oct 29, 2016 14:15:49 GMT
Nick - Concerning the 2 screen grabs you posted. I have to say I suspect they are mainly just badly written. However the first one rather than answering the question hints that there was more to it than was posted publicly, though that would presumably be a reference to the trigger that caused your suspension in the PM/email you had with Dan.
The second one was in fairness to LM was I think mainly answering the question regarding the general case of banning a member because of what was in private. That an abusive pm could result in an immediate ban. Though LM did not say so, I have no reason to think LM was referring specifically to you. LM did start the reply stating that individual and specific cases would not be discussed and hence ignored the last line in the post relating to yourself.
|
|