Jump to content

"Bigbadwolf's" reply


Ladymuck

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • This! And just a polite reminder to certain posters on here, the title of the thread is "cyclists taking over paths"!  
    • Is there more news on this? Plus Council/Gala response on the tree lopping?
    • If 85% of car drivers are regularly breaking the law and think they are above it - then it suggests they aren’t being caught and fined doesn’t it? 
    • But we are talking about the cyclists are we not? Did you also notice the very same pedestrian walks across the pedestrian crossing and what happens...the cyclist cycling up the wrong way of the cycle lane doesn't stop at the pedestrian crossing....   Perhaps you would like to try and find fault with the pedestrians in the other video....or are you refusing to watch that one too...time to take the blinkers off perhaps... Well if they get caught speeding they get fined...you can kill someone when youre riding a bike and claim the speed limit doesn't count for you and you can't be charged with causing death by dangerous cycling. Is that perfectly acceptable in your world?   As I have said for a long time the daily repeated examples of.bad cycling everyone can see must be down to arrogance or ignorance...which one is it? Police are starting to have to more aggressively police cycling not because they want to but because they have to..why..because cyclist behaviour is getting worse.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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