Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> >

> good point well made

>

>

>

> simple typo I know, but really, was a comma ever

> more needed?



Why is your posting so smug Sean? I don't even understand the smoke and mirrors part. Must be an in joke??

I could have been asking whether Sean was keen to know cate, or whether cate was keen to know the moderators... only the comma could have cleared it up.


I was, as cate identified, wondering why cate was keen to know the moderators.


I think the only forums that I know where the moderators don't also post are the professional services, as opposed to the labours of love like the EDF.

Cate, I know who everyone is, their real names, addresses and family members breakfast habits.


A small fee guarantees access to the inner circle.


But in all seriousness, as Huguenot says, remaining semi-anonymous allows them to conduct moderation and comment in persona without crossover or needless accusations. It's no conspiracy.

David Carnell, I never said it was a conspiracy. And how can one be semi-anonymous? Only the moderators know who they are?


Sean, your posting about really was a comma ever more needed came across as smug to me. I can think of more urgent cases. You're not that important, although your ego is growing to be nearly the size of a planet.


What exactly happens when one is moderated? Does one get sent any semi-anonymous PM (whatever that is)?

blimey, it was the comma statement that you thought was smug?


Ok your name was quoted in the sentence, but it had nothing to do with you at all - I was having a knowing wink at Huguenot who, as anyone can tell from his posts, likes a bit of accuracy but also a bit of verbal sparring. I wasn't picking him up on a pedantic note, just pointing out (as he well knows) the vast difference in meaning that that comma meant - but it wasn't about YOU - it could have been any name at the end of that sentence. And if you weren't worried about your name but thought I was just picking him up on his grammar, you will have to trust me that I wasn't


(And if I was going to do that to someone I wouldn't pick him - I know full well that he would come back with an obscure text from 1790 which permits the absence of commas when the... etc etc etc)


But you do seem to have a particular beef with me and it can't be just about that comment - what gives?

Moderators can only cajole, persuade and at worst hide posts. Only He who is Admin has the zappy finger of truth. Err I imagine.


One of the moderators was subjected to serious harassment which resulted in a ban and a report to the police, thus anonimity is generally respected by the many forumites who may actually know who peter Parker really is.

No, Admin is admin, unless admin is on holiday, in which case admin may ask a moderator to be admin for a week. The moderators moderate under their own names, but just don't shout about it.


One or two of them have admitted to doing stuff on certain threads, but I can see why they don't want a very obvious public list of their names, as that would leave them very open to abuse.

I'm sure your expression of support is appreciated by the moderators whomsoever they may be.


To be honest this forum is incredibly self regulating. The moderators have surprisingly little to do because, in effect, every regular poster is a moderator in the way they behave and request standards of behaviour (respect, courtesy, daft wittiness) of newcomers.

  • 3 weeks later...

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> There seems to be a nice sort of equilibrium. For

> every lost Quaywe we might get a new Quids. If

> marmots man pipes down santerme pipes up. If there

> isn't enough Huguenot pedantry I can fill the

> breach.

> Not much snorky? Presto blah/whatever

> coincidentally embittered surly Hibernian

> misanthrope may appear next.



Snorky will not back under any name, so dont fret about it

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

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

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.”
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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