(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)

[danechip]

Does that mean mods banned me?

Thanks in advance.

 

[EddieM]

Yes, it means you got a reply ban on a thread.

 

[danechip]

Thanks, i figured it out, poor lil sparxxx again....

 

[danechip]

Ive never had that in 10 years lol, gutted.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think it just happens sometimes - not sure why.

 

[danechip]

I was a bit rude EFL, even said 'phuck'...

 

[Mottie]

Happens every time with me whenever I ask a certain person a question.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Thanks, i figured it out, poor lil sparxxx again....

He seems like the IT Moron of Electrics UK, arrogant to say the least.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

You get the "insufficient priveleges" treatment if you say something racist...which as we know all too well can be anything that anybody perceives as racist.

Bobby Dazzler said earlier "Anyone who intentionally makes racist comments, especially with the sole intention of being offensive, deserves to become a pariah of society". I'd agree with the "sole intention of being offensive" bit; but how can we discuss problems between different countries and their peoples without anyone seeing it as offensive? Their needs to be a platform for these issues to be discussed.

 

[IT Minion]

He seems like the IT Moron of Electrics UK, arrogant to say the least.

It's only arrogance when you're wrong.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I'm not commenting on why you received the warning in this forum, however I think part of the challenge in some scenarios can be misinterpretation of what people mean when participating in forum debate.

I was a member of another forum for years. Like this one, it centered around a specific subject but had a general discussion section. A topic was raised around dangers mainly woman can be exposed to when in public. I can't remember the specifics, however I mentioned something along the lines of 'women would be advised to think twice about walking home alone at night.' I was surprised when I next logged in to discover I'd been given a x day temporary ban. I emailed forum support and they advised the ban had been implemented as they didn't tolerate victim blaming on the forum. I was incredulous as this definitely hadn't been what I intended to express/portray. I emailed back stating under no circumstances was that my intention, however as part of robust forum debate surely it was reasonable to assert women unfortunately need to think twice about walking home alone at night due to the dangers it potentially exposes them to.

My temporary ban was upgraded to a permanent one

All jokes aside it really disappointed and to an extent upset me as my comment had been completely misinterpreted.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Typical of the (post) modern nonsense.

I liken it to using a zebra crossing without looking. You have the right of way but could still get run over.

 

[danechip]

I'm not commenting on why you received the warning in this forum, however I think part of the challenge in some scenarios can be misinterpretation of what people mean when participating in forum debate.

I was a member of another forum for years. Like this one, it centered around a specific subject but had a general discussion section. A topic was raised around dangers mainly woman can be exposed to when in public. I can't remember the specifics, however I mentioned something along the lines of 'women would be advised to think twice about walking home alone at night.' I was surprised when I next logged in to discover I'd been given a x day temporary ban. I emailed forum support and they advised the ban had been implemented as they didn't tolerate victim blaming on the forum. I was incredulous as this definitely hadn't been what I intended to express/portray. I emailed back stating under no circumstances was that my intention, however as part of robust forum debate surely it was reasonable to assert women unfortunately need to think twice about walking home alone at night due to the dangers it potentially exposes them to.

My temporary ban was upgraded to a permanent one

All jokes aside it really disappointed and to an extent upset me as my comment had been completely misinterpreted.

I do agree Mr MOD, he is just such an idiot, I've been here 10 years and search for advice I need, and maybe put in my 2 pence worth, That chunt has more posts than me, a lot are arguments or abusive and offers nothing to the forum, spouting the regs to 333 who has a lot more sense of the regs than a lot of you. My background is Electronic engineering, I am not a sparky in any sense, (I can clean up after myself lol) just enough to wire a plug really but I have gone that bit further in wiring (and testing) to get by.

 

[danechip]

Typical of the (post) modern nonsense.

I liken it to using a zebra crossing without looking. You have the right of way but could still get run over.

Try that in Finland when you look the wrong way lol. 2 or 3 near misses.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Typical of the (post) modern nonsense.

I liken it to using a zebra crossing without looking. You have the right of way but could still get run over.

And it would be the drivers fault, not the pedestrians.

A driver MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a Zebra Crossing (Highway Code Rule 195)​

So, in that sense, a reasonable analogy.
If a woman is attacked, it is the fault of the attacker, in all cases, not that of the victim.