conspiracy theories

[Narnia]

I haven't read all of this thread but enough to get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile Hal was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a moderator) or the forum would be shut down. Thus if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can mention out loud, were to retire from it, then it would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum would be nigh.As my post about moderators was moved to the 'about the forum' section which nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that there is some conspiracy happening here about which I know very little but which appears to have on one side HAL as the victim and two others as the aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!

[Santerme]

All will be revealed on the next episode of Soap!

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Declan, I think Sean and Hal are big enough to battle it out by themselves. Leave the pot of excrement alone.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Nothing Hals fault declan. Chill

your boots. Im just exhausted with nonsense arguments. By the time I regretted saying I would leave people had quoted my post so I left it. Hal isn't in any trouble

you on the other hand

your post about moderation Is about the forum so it's in the right place. If noone goes there then that just proves my point about conspiracies and people.

I moderate on here. It's been recorded on the forum many a time Happy? Not all moderators are as happy being exposed tho. Maybe you could accord them some respect

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

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

> 100

*wails inconsolably...but not before cursing ????*

[SeanMacGabhann]

I thought quids broke one if his own rules tho ladymuck, don't you think?

[????]

Declan Wrote:

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

> I haven't read all of this thread but enough to

> get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has

> stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile Hal

> was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a

> moderator) or the forum would be shut down. Thus

> if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can

> mention out loud, were to retire from it, then it

> would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum

> would be nigh.As my post about moderators was

> moved to the 'about the forum' section which

> nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that there

> is some conspiracy happening here about which I

> know very little but which appears to have on one

> side HAL as the victim and two others as the

> aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!

that's one of the most paranoid posts i've ever read

[????]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I thought quids broke one if his own rules tho

> ladymuck, don't you think?

busted

[daizie]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

>

> I moderate on here. It's been recorded on the

> forum many a time Happy? Not all moderators are

> as happy being exposed tho. Maybe you could accord

> them some respect

Respect Sir!

[Narnia]

Sean, I really don't know where you are coming from. Happy about what? I haven't exposed a moderator to the masses as none confide in me. So who am I supposed to accord respect to?

I doubt HAL cares if he is in trouble but you suggest that I am. What sort of trouble am I in? It seems to me you are worn out and you need a rest. I don't mean that patronisingly but simply because I've seen the odd post of yours here and there and you just seem pi**ed off. That's a shame if it's true.

[Narnia]

Well try reading between the lines and it wont sound so paranoid.

???? Wrote:

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

> Declan Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I haven't read all of this thread but enough to

> > get the gist that Hal is upsetting Sean who has

> > stated he should retire like Piers. Meanwhile

> Hal

> > was warned not to upset anyone else (ie a

> > moderator) or the forum would be shut down.

> Thus

> > if Sean in his role, which I'm not sure I can

> > mention out loud, were to retire from it, then

> it

> > would be HAL's fault and the end of the forum

> > would be nigh.As my post about moderators was

> > moved to the 'about the forum' section which

> > nobody ever looks at, should I conclude that

> there

> > is some conspiracy happening here about which I

> > know very little but which appears to have on

> one

> > side HAL as the victim and two others as the

> > aggressors? Or have I got that all wrong? Help!

>

> that's one of the most paranoid posts i've ever

> read

[????]

But that's the problem with paranoid people, they tend to read between the lines rather than what's ACTULLY written

[Narnia]

I imagine that I could probably insult you more than you have me, but there is no point.

[????]

well you seem pretty good at insulting Sean for the cheek of being a moderator so no doubt you could.

[Narnia]

You have misunderstood me ????. I have not intentionally or otherwise insulted Sean.

[????]

I'd be insulted if someone said I was worn out and needed a rest

[Narnia]

True........if that's what I said!

[????]

Declan Wrote:

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

> >

> Sean, I really don't know where you are coming

> from. Happy about what? I haven't exposed a

> moderator to the masses as none confide in me. So

> who am I supposed to accord respect to?

>

> I doubt HAL cares if he is in trouble but you

> suggest that I am. What sort of trouble am I in?

> It seems to me you are worn out and you need a

> rest. I don't mean that patronisingly but simply

> because I've seen the odd post of yours here and

> there and you just seem pi**ed off. That's a shame

> if it's true.

[Narnia]

Why didn't you place that in the context of what followed? Believe what you like.

[????]

Well posting the whole post seems reasonably in context.

[Narnia]

Not when you but a part of it in bold.

[silverfox]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> That's why I give you such short shrift Silverfox,

> because you make silly assumptions based on gut

> feel.

>

> For some idiotic reason you think that there's

> 'the man' somewhere who's reducing the speed limit

> just to piss you off?

Posted by: ruffers Today, 12:45AM

Huguenot speaks the truth.

Now, Huguenot and his mate ruffers would have us believe that traffic spped reductions to a level slower than a horse and cart laden with coal and ore on a turnpike road during the industrial revolution actually speeds up our journeys - that is after we've waitied five minutes at each of 20 sets of traffic lights. ruffers thinks this is a truism.

On the contrary, I, and most right thinking people, know that that is what they want us to think. Unable to trust their own senses, thinking the car's rolling backwards as you see a granny with a trolley overtaking you, oblivious to the fact that recreational joggers doing a paced 8 miles an hour arrive at your destination half an our before you do, they persist in their quasi-religious belief.

We have to stand up to such nonesense. Why? Because if we don't next we'll have the the likes of Huguenot and ruffers claiming it's their human rights to ride a tandem in the fast lane of the M1 from London to Glasgow and beyond and hey, if it slows you down it actually speeds you up - counter-intuitive like.

[????]

what? The bit you questioned you'd written!

[Santerme]

Is this the pre match knock up, or are we into the real thing now?

[Ladymuck]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> I thought quids broke one if his own rules tho

> ladymuck, don't you think?

Eh?

You've lost me Sean...clarification sought please.