Admin and censorship - pls read last atticus threads

[Atticus]

I think I've been perfectly reasonable throughout this, you decide.

[RosieH]

Oh my god, you're mental.

[Atticus]

Why?

[Narnia]

You haven't been censored. None of your posts have been deleted. You were careless starting a thread on a subject where one existed already.

[Saila]

I agree with Atticus here. He was just pointing out that the Actress was advertising football but then had the sound down.. but it seems that because the post was 'negative' about the Actress the post was locked and he was told to add to a very old thread about the actress

but

there are many threads about Franklins, The Victoria Inn

seems a little inconsistent

[RosieH]

Because you seem to think that Admin is in some way censoring you, rather than simply keeping the place tidy by moving your threads into the correct sections.

And you've started a second thread about being censored in the space of, what, 3 minutes?

Persecution complex?

[Pearson]

^ I'm with you Aila & Atticus.

Loads of separate threads on break-ins/ theft/ dogs/ parks/ same pubs....

didn't see any harm in your thread at all.

Meddling Admin!

Could have lead to a whole discussion of TV's in pubs etc.

[Atticus]

Ok, fair enough Rosie. Note, description of 'mental' can and does actually cause offence.

[zeban]

Well I'm annoyed because I wanted to edit my post due to it sounding a bit inflammatory without asking the details. Were there many people watching Atticus? Did you ask why the sound was down? I do definitely think if pubs are advertising that they're showing the footie, then it does seem absurd that they wouldn't have the sound up. No one wants to watch footie with the sound down!

[RosieH]

My apologies Atticus. No offence intended.

[Brendan]

.

[cate]

Atticus Wrote:

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

> I think I've been perfectly reasonable throughout

> this, you decide.

Just read the locked thread and I agree with you. It's not a general comment, it's specific and I think it deserves its own thread.

[Narnia]

Saila Wrote:

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

> I agree with Atticus here. He was just pointing

> out that the Actress was advertising football but

> then had the sound down.. but it seems that

> because the post was 'negative' about the Actress

> the post was locked and he was told to add to a

> very old thread about the actress

>

> but

>

> there are many threads about Franklins, The

> Victoria Inn

>

> seems a little inconsistent

In Admins defence I'd say most if not all of what you claim here is inaccurate.

[Narnia]

cate Wrote:

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

> Atticus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think I've been perfectly reasonable

> throughout

> > this, you decide.

>

> Just read the locked thread and I agree with you.

> It's not a general comment, it's specific and I

> think it deserves its own thread.

So every establishment in the area is entitled to a thread about every aspect of its services? The place would become a mess. If the owner of the pub can't be bothered to respond to the query as to why the sound is down it's a poor reflection on him. It still doesn't need another thread though as he appears to be quite happy to write on the forum on the existing threads.

[Pearson]

Narnia, i would guess the 'owner' is probably busy doing more fulfilling things.

A bit unfair to bash them - 'can't be bothered/ poor reflection'

As regards you other point re the relevance of the thread.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

[Narnia]

You misunderstood my point Pearson or I didn't word it very well. I wasn't bashing the owner at all as he posts here quite regularly on two ongoing threads. I would expect him to reply if a complaint was posted on either of those but would hardly expect him to trawl through countless threads just looking for others relating to his pub.

I think the point is very relevant but as I've said it's more likely to get a response from the owner if it the post was written on one of the existing threads. As for censorship being involved, I thing that's rubbish.

[Pearson]

Can't argue with that, fair enough.

But surely with regards to the point about numerous dog/theft etc threads

this should apply here.

And besides, i'm sure the owner would mind/complain at having many threads dedicated their establishment.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I've read

I've decided

Atticus is unreasonable.

[mockney piers]

Just because everyone else is letting their dog poo on the pavement, doesn't mean it's acceptable. Someone eventually needs to put their hand in the plastic bag and put it in the appropriate place.

I shake admin's hand ... err .... on second thoughts ...

[Pearson]

bizarre analogy.

[Brendan]

It is a bit like a market I suppose.

[Atticus]

Sean, beautifully brutal but inconcise.

Have you decided that you don't quite care for my use of the word censorship? Perhaps then, that was a tad harsh.

Or, were you simply offended that I dared to speak out against EDF Admin fav 'The Actress'?

If the latter, then a consice explanation as to why 'The Actress' (in all its praising glory)thread was allowed 'lounge' status for weeks, as opposed to my critique of said pub, which, survived for less than a pitiful two hours, is justified.

Politely awaiting your defensive (and as read before) aggresive return.

[cate]

Sean is a moderator. Maybe it was his moderation wot dunnit.

[Administrator]

Nope it was mine. Apologies that moving the discussion about an ED business to the ED business section caused offence.

[Pearson]

"Apologies that moving the discussion about an ED business to the ED business section caused offence."

And quite rightly too, you've missed the threads about : JP Wetherspoons, several about Sainsbury and one about Sky