Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh dear Karter and LM. In one sentence you are

> both telling him to f off and in another there's

> no reason for him to be banned, it's a learning

> experience. This person doesn't want to exchange

> opinions with forumites. He just wants to wind

> people up. You two have had your happy pills far

> too early.


Narnia, yes I told him/her to f-uck off. I hit flashpoint! That was yesterday. S/he behaved abominably - there is no question (and I think I made that clear). S/he has, however, since proffered various apologies (there is something to be said for that - I can think of at least a couple of posters who give the impression that it is beneath them to tender an apology). And yes I have since (today) also agreed with karter that s/he shouldn't be banned (for the moment, anyway) - purely because others have (IMO) conducted themselves in an equally atrocious manner in the past and have escaped banning. I haven't done so in the same sentence as you say - not even on the same day, in fact.


Whether or not the apologies are meaningful and heartfelt, will become apparent in time. I sincerely hope they are. However, I am one for giving someone the benefit of the doubt - until given good reason to do otherwise. I would rather that than to be partially responsible for a hasty ban.

I presume Axeman would call herself Axewoman if he was a she. I haven't seen anything remotely resembling sincerity written by the Axeperson, just a poor attempt at plausability. My reference regarding you and 'get karter' and sentences was using a bit of poetic license.

I would rather that than to be partially responsible for a hasty ban.



but if someone gets banned, its because they alone are responsible for what they post, no?


narnia - someone who registers and posts abusive/antagonistic/etc messages is just as likely to register under a misleading username as not. In my opinion anyway.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I presume Axeman would call herself Axewoman if he

> was a she.


That thought did occur to me...but I learned a long, long time ago never to assume...


I haven't seen anything remotely

> resembling sincerity written by the Axeperson,

> just a poor attempt at plausability.


S/he has apologised (more than once). However, I acknowledge that you may well be right (in which case I will look like a complete and utter fool - not for the first time either). I sincerely hope you are wrong though (and I don't mean that in a nasty way).

I'm slightly surprised at the apparent lack of tolerance/patience demonstrated by some posters who were only grudgingly accepted as members of this community themselves.


Surely we are all sufficiently well adjusted to cope with one more impetuous newcomer - s/he'll no doubt become part of the furniture eventually?

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but if someone gets banned, its because they alone

> are responsible for what they post, no?


Of course a poster is responsible for what s/he posts. My point was more about the forum public "encouraging" a ban perhaps prematurely without first fully observing how things develop following an apology. But, yes I accept your argument.

You can only take people by the words they write...and they have to take responsibility for what they write. Personally I am against censorship but that doesn't mean we should make excuses for Axeman when he/ she comes out with nonsense about chief whips and the like. A quick look at his posts on other threads I think shows what he's really up to and I'm not feeding it anymore.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What is it that makes Waitrose so special! Admittedly I have shopped a couple of times in the Orpington and Beckenham one - sometimes buying food which I cannot get else where. Their 'basic range' is not bad. Price for price and quality - M & S.
    • Sometimes a shed or other installation has to have written approval from the freeholder i.e. Southwark, Southwark has (or did have) a Leaseholder Association.   Could also come under Anti Social Behaviour Unit.
    • Love Dulwich is great but has a large step in front. We have only been weekdays at Lunch time. Maria's next to Picture House is disabled friendly. Also can reserve table in advance. We did a Sunday lunch catch up with family - there were 8 of us.
    • Hi, Thinking about  going with some friends and was just wondering if folk might like to report back please. Most importantly sound level when busy & is it disabled friendly.  Thinking on a Sunday lunchtime but don’t want a busy busy environment or loud chatter - a couple of friends could not cope. Time can be flexible, if that helps - say 2 ish to avoid above.. Thanks…      
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...