"Bigbadwolf's" reply

[jimmy two times]

First there's the debate about him being banned. Then comes the debate about the reaction to his ban followed by the debate about the reaction to the reaction to his ban.

[Brendan]

You're all idiots.*

*except for the few of you who aren't.

EDTI: because I cant fucking spel this morning.

[Keef]

Bugger, I only slimmed through the post last night, meant to read it properly today.

[Mick Mac]

It read a bit like a "Who's who" of the EDF....although not particularly complimentary.

[mockney piers]

A who's poo if you will.

[mockney piers]

Or even Whose Poo, at a pinch.

Note to self, possible game show format, sequel to Monkey Tennis.

[bignumber5]

On a similar thread a good few months back, I posted this:

The dissect-the-incident whinging that seems to follow every little hiccup on this forum is almost as annoying as the incidents themselves: have admin and the moderators ever given cause to suggest that they are being oppressive or unreasonable? Maybe have a tiny bit of faith and even occasionally give them the benefit of the doubt: I think it's a small price for what I get back out of this forum, and I invite you to ask that question of yourself.

Nothing seems to have changed, other than I am personally getting far less out of the forum than I used to, and that's largely down to the fact that the same whingers are whinging about the same rubbish: I think this about admins recent action, I think that about a recently banned forumite. Discussion is all very well, but to those telling admin how they want the forum to be run, I say this: It might be a free world and a free country, but it's not a free forum, it's admins forum. It isn't run according to the Geneva Convention or the world of fair as decreed by the individual disgruntled, or just plain argumentative, user. It is run according to how admin wants it to be run. And I think it's well run.

If you don't like something and have a constructive solution or suggestion, discuss that with him/her by all means, but yet another repetitive public outcry of moaning with no constructive content is tedious - if you really don't like it, don't let the lounge door hit you in the arse on your way to a different forum.

[woofmarkthedog]

Or a De'Pratts guide ?

[SCSB79]

Declan Wrote:

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

> I could say that using the term 'taking the

> mickey' i.e taking the mick was an offensive way

> of describing BBW's behaviour.

> A mick is considered to be an Irishman. I happen

> to be one. However I'm not offended in the least.

> BUT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SEE IT AS RACIST. You're not

> going to ban yourself are you?

:)):)):)):)):)):))

"Taking the mick" is racist - holy fu*k, I've heard it all now.

[Keef]

As I said before, I only skimmed the post last night, but I didn't see anyhting particularly offensive. Being that an entire thread was devoted to BBW, on which people said all sorts about him (some of which was no doubt true), I think he had a right to stand up for himself with one final reply.

The bit he wrote for Jah Lush, for example, was nice, and should have stood.

Didn't read the bit about Sean, and really really wish I had now. It's like those banned films that everybody then wants to see.

BN5, I take your point, and you're right, this is indeed admin's forum, and he may get annoyed by threads like this, I don't know. But, until admin adds a term of use like "there shall be no questioning of anything done by admin or the mods", then of course people will discuss what they think of things, because it's a discussion forum isn't it?

I hate to say it, but the 2 threads I've clicked on first since the forum came back were the TLS/BBW one, and this one, because frankly, they've been the most interesting to read.

Other than that, I've managed to upset a friend in the stupid footy thread, and talk about executing Gary Glitter.

[Ladymuck]

bignumber5 Wrote:

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

...The dissect-the-incident whinging that seems to follow every little hiccup on this forum is almost as annoying as the incidents themselves: have admin and the moderators ever given cause to suggest that they are being oppressive or unreasonable?

...largely down to the fact that the same whingers are whinging about the same rubbish...

I am assuming the above is not a rhetorical question.

In answer to: have admin and the moderators ever given cause to suggest that they are being oppressive? I believe the answer is a categorical "no".

In answer to: have admin and the moderators ever given cause to suggest that they are being unreasonable? Again, it is my belief that the answer is "no".

And it is, perhaps ironically, precisely because of this, that when BBW requested my help that I agreed to post his reply on his behalf (given that he is in "read-only" mode insofar as his access to the Forum is concerned).

That Admin saw fit to remove the posting, for me is regrettable purely because I believe that everyone should be entitled to a right of reply. However, the reply did contain e.g. some specific name-calling which might have caused annoyance - perhaps even offence - to those at whom it was directed. Personally, I genuinely didn't regard the "name-calling" etc. as offensive - certainly in terms of what Admin generally deem acceptable on the Forum on a day-to day basis. And, insofar as the words came from BBW, I thought they were tame. But clearly Admin didn't agree and the reply was removed.

I did consider forwarding the "reply" onto Admin for approval prior to posting it...but, following much thought (and a consultation with hubby!) considered there was no need. On hindsight, this is where I went wrong and BBW is the one who has actually lost out as a result. Furthermore, I suspect I may have betrayed Admin's trust - if so, it was not intentional.

I do not regret having attempted to help out another forumite. I knew that my actions would be controversial and that they would make me even less popular than I already am to a few. But I was prepared to take that risk because (a) of the principle of the right to reply and (b) this is such a well run Forum. I certainly did not do it to encourage whinging or argument.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm happy enough to repeat what he wrote about me - I read it on the bus home last night and thought "keef will like that" but it was gone by the time I got home

I don't mind the insults from him, but the accusations which are false, demonstrably untrue and deffamatory I do mind

But if supporters of his keep starting threads asking "is he missed"? then people will write back and say why they don't like him - that doesn't give him any right of reply. As Admin has stated, he had 9 chances... why should we feel bad for him again?

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I'm happy enough to repeat what he wrote about me...

Please - be my guest...

However, if you are seriously intending reproducing the post then it would have to be in its entirety. To reproduce a small section could place matters out of context and could be misleading. This to my mind would be quite improper, not to mention potentially damaging to BBW.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And he would never take anything out of context

[Keef]

I read it on the bus home last night and thought "keef will like that"

Well I don't know. Had it said "Sean is a nasty man", I wouldn't have liked it. Had it contained "accusations which are false, demonstrably untrue and deffamatory", I like to think I wouldn't have liked it.

I hope, despite finding your style ON HERE hard to swallow sometimes, that I am not offensive to you, or make accusations which are false, demonstrably untrue and deffamatory.

If it had just said "Sean is admin's pet", I would have smiled to myself, I admit it.

[Mark]

I saw it and BBW was just using the "right to reply" premise as a trojan horse to post a few personal digs at people on the site. I know he was told to come back in the new year but pulling a stunt like that won't go down well with Admin. Please don't post it again anyone, I'd rather this episode was laid to rest.

[HAL9000]

BBW added his email address at the bottom of the rapidly deleted Right to Reply text, which I only read through once before it was gone. Would anyone who also read that text help confirm my memory:

mindyourownbusiness44@gmail ... now was it .com or .co.uk? I think it was .co.uk but I'm not sure. Anyone?

[Mick Mac]

could try both hal or perhaps pm to lady muck as he must have way of corresponding with lady m.

[woofmarkthedog]

OOhh what a flap he's causing again that BBW.

More power to him.

Noses out of joint too.

[louisiana]

daizie Wrote:

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

> lol, personally i would seriously 'question' the

> fragile mental state of the offended people.

I'm with you there Daizie. It's the whole Mary Whitehouse thing. If a person is easily offended, they should probably be tucked up in bed with a nice cup of cocoa.

[SeanMacGabhann]

but who was offended in this case? People are throwing the word around but I'm not sure it applies

[daizie]

The people who reported his posts /complained to Admin, No?

[woofmarkthedog]

And some..........

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> BBW added his email address... Would anyone...

> confirm my memory...

Mark (of Admin):

do you have any objection to my posting BBW's email address here?

[woofmarkthedog]

No, post ahead

The Admonster