THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING

[Nige F]

Even "schoolboy" banter `twix me an BOB has been removed Involving puerile assertations that I "intended to bully" BOB using methods described in Tom Brown`s Schooldays I assumed that my assuming the persona of "Flashman" from the book would be an indication that I was delving into the realms of Satire....perhaps even Pythonesque "humour" is unacceptable or ?.......as for Frustration........Take a cold shower,Boy

 

[supersparky]

Blimey, i feel like im in the first year of secondary school: lol:

grow up

bas, you have a good point, the mods on here don’t know their arse from their elbow.

but you keep on about it relentlessly, id advise you find another forum, because its not going to change on here and your looking childish constantly banging on about it.

softus, you look like one of the "year 7s" instead of making a good argument you try and make yourself appear better than the other poster by belittling them...why? its not a good argument example:

"OK then, if we're talking about mouths and money, are you saying that you'll pay me if I can refer you to a post in which b-a-s has answered the challenge which you so brazenly repeat? "

now that is a schoolboy comment isnt it, picking up on a phrase he used and turning it when it was quite blatantly not ment that way.

as for joe-90 and paulbrown, i wont comment on where they stand with their views as this isnt the thread for it, but they do have a "adult" appearance to their arguments

so common, were all adults - act it, because at the moment it looks like a school forum.

 

[JulieL/B]

BAS - I think that the mods delete/close/edit your posts are because you appear to make it too personal by the name calling name when you don't agree with what someone has said............This is such a shame as I often agree with a lot of what you say on many issues, your points appear to be strongly argued with a great deal of clarity but I feel that that the impact of whats being said becomes lost when it becomes too personally directed.

Indeed I have often wanted to write about many issues which are controversial as I an keen to obtain other perspectives but because of how this would be perceived I have refrained from doing this.................!


Surely, the mods must read what going on in threads and come to the conclusion what is and whats not appropriate (I would have thought).
They do often remove posts by Slogger, Bob Dole, Joe 90, paulbrown and Moz as I have read stuff they have written and the next time I look it's gone - so I guess it's not only you who is being censored here.


All debate has a left, right and middle of the road opinions.........and even with the best will in the World - it is very unlikely that we agree totally with everything someone has to say on every particular subject. It doesn't mean to say you are right or I am wrong if we differ on what we think or believe.....it just means we are different thats all...........lets face it life would be very boring if we all felt the same way about controversial issues.

What you can do about your frustrations here I don't know!

Maybe the most productive way would be to draw a line in the sand and move on to undertaking other posts again.........as I can't help thinking that the mods and admin have said all they are going to on this subject (as was on previous thread that was locked).

Again BAS, not having a go just offering my opinion re this.

C'mon.........lets all have a group hug! Life really is too short!

 

[Zampa]

Better still, have those posts moved, not removed - wouldn't want to get even more censorship going.....

MOD 2

nothing is getting locked without warning

Thats not quite true is it...

I agree with BAS frustrations but not his views myself..

Or..as ive said so many times...lock/delete any threads that have race religion and politics...that way there will be no agruements will there....state under the Genral tab that they are not for inclusion under this heading.

There no point in allowing people to state their opinions (whatever side of the fence thy sit on)...and then locking a thread after so many pages because you have decided enoughs enough...

Julie b wrote..

I think that the mods delete/close/edit your posts are because you appear to make it too personal by the name calling name when you don't agree with what someone has said

I have to agree there and...someone is not a racist becasue they do not want to live in the middle of other peoples cultures...and people ar not facists and Nazis because they are concerned about the numbers of people entering this country both legally and illigally..

If you have a point to make make it and more importantly.....back it up...

 

[Softus]

softus, you look like one of the "year 7s" instead of making a good argument you try and make yourself appear better than the other poster by belittling them...why?

The summary to my post had nothing to do with money, and everything to do with an adult apology from paulbrown, but you've chosen to hack out one comment and attempt, fruitlessly, to behave in a belittling manner yourself - the height of hypocrisy.

it yo its not a good argument example:

"OK then, if we're talking about mouths and money, are you saying that you'll pay me if I can refer you to a post in which b-a-s has answered the challenge which you so brazenly repeat? "

now that is a schoolboy comment isnt it, picking up on a phrase he used and turning it when it was quite blatantly not ment that way.

Quite so; it was so blatent that I expected my satire to be easily understood. However, it seems that instead of my post being in the "year 7" style, it was merely your interpretation of it. In any case, my dad is bigger that your dad.

as for joe-90 and paulbrown, i wont comment on where they stand with their views as this isnt the thread for it, but they do have a "adult" appearance to their arguments

I would be alarmed if you represented the consensus. Fortunately, you're alone with that view.

so common, were all adults - act it, because at the moment it looks like a school forum.

This topic is not about arguments between members, but the moderators' treatment of those arguments.

MOD 2

strike 1 now the lot of you behave

 

[Softus]

...If you have a point to make make it and more importantly.....back it up...

Zampa, I've seen plenty of examples of b-a-s backing up his assertions - he does so unfailingly IMHO. This doesn't mean that I agree with his content, or his style, but I do know that I haven't seen one single example of him failing to explain the reasoning that underpins his opinions.

This is danger of going off-topic, because people seem to be taking the opportunity to attack each other, however mildly. It would be more beneficial if the topic were used to discuss whether or not the forum rules are clear, and, if they are, what those rules are and whether or not they are consistently applied.

At the moment, it appears that justice is not being seen to be done, because it's too difficult to rationalise the decisions that lead to posts, or indeed entire topics, being summarily deleted.

MOD 2 has stated that he/she will lock nothing without prior warning, which is a very reasonable stance (he/her being a reasonable person), but he/she is not the only moderator, and other moderators are less open with their policies. IMHO, or course, but also based on the following topic:
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=49336

It's very easy to suggest that people leave the forum if they don't like this inconsistency, but that's a cop out. The right thing to do is the most difficult - to see each other's point of view whilst maintaining the right to vociferously disagree with it. This topic has something to offer every member, potentially, by the rules being improved or becoming better publicised.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So Mod 2 is here.

Are we going to get an answer to my original post here

 

[joe-90]

MOD 2

strike 2 end of
the next one joe and i hit the button

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You realise that that's just what he wants, don't you.....

 

[toffee]

well im hoping that the topic will not be locked if one member's sole purpose on the topic can be seen to be trying to get the post locked for others.

fingers crossed.

 

[confidentincompetent]

 

[paulbrown]

noodliz wrote.

PaulBrown, I also concur with Softus's views, yet this does not make me part of a clique for merely agreeing with others. If you wish to call me within a group of people who are anti-racist, for want of a better term, I can live with that, but if one were to resort to this simplicity surely by your own logic the opposing side of this banal assertion would be the racists?

From someone who asked me to provide him with the names of the people who run the ‘Stop The BNP’ website and claiming them to be a left-wing extremist organisation, then himself posting a link to the BNP website, it is quite clear to most reasonable people how to view you. A person is not only racist by overt comments, such as with Slogger, some are more subtle and their views are quite apparent from their general perspective….either they are racists or amazing pedants in their defence of the indefensible. David Cameron recently said UKIP had many ‘closet racists’, which is the problem with most racists nowadays….they are in the closet. So, come on PaulBrown, if you want to come out of the closet, your secret’s safe with us.

I have no issues with you agreeing with softus, that is your perogative.

However, if you must refer too previous conversations at least have the decency to link them. I believe you are taking them out of context and would expect you too justify your remarks.

I don't recall ever voicing my support for the BNP save for saying they are a legal political party which should be acceptable within a democracy.If you don't agree with them don't vote for them.

That said, why do you people complain about censorship on a minor website when you would ban a legitimate political party in a democracy?

Double standards?

 

[Softus]

Legitimate political party my a*se - the leader is a two-faced bigoted scumbag who's facing a criminal trial for inciting racial hatred. The other MPs merely sleep with someone else's wife.

 

[paulbrown]

Softus wrote.

I would respectfully request that nobody reply to the post that precedes this on

I don't follow?

The debate is about censorship and your asking people not to voice their opinion.

Censorship softus style?

Legitimate political party my a*se - the leader is a two-faced bigoted scumbag who's facing a criminal trial for inciting racial hatred. The other MPs merely sleep with someone else's wife.

Are you saying the BNP is an illegal party?

Innocent until proven guilty? not in softus world!

 

[Softus]

What a load of absolute rubbish from pb...

Softus wrote.

I would respectfully request that nobody reply to the post that precedes this on

I don't follow?

The debate is about censorship and your asking people not to voice their opinion.

Censorship softus style?

No. I respectfully requested that nobody reply to the post that preceded the post that contained the request. The number of people who appear not to have understood that polite request is.......one.

Are you saying the BNP is an illegal party?

No. The definition of legitimate that I was using in this context was "based on logical reasoning; reasonable".

Innocent until proven guilty? not in softus world!

Whatever