Vin and Stuart B
Did I actually see the word "apology" there?
If not: perhaps one of you would at least like to give a reasoned or considered reply to *ANY* of *MY* childish, sarcastic, complaints.
Or even a reasoned explanation of why I (we) were publicly "named and shamed" without trial, without warning that I've found, and, it would appear, (under *your* code of law) without even a right to self defence.
If not, perhaps you would like to reply to this on the moderators behalf, as he can't be ar*s*d to reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning Martyn
Would you prefer if I replied in dozens of one line "soundbite" mails?
A few seperate responses, one per paragraph or point?
Or will you object strongly and feel intimidated and offended if I "dissect"
your email?
> Is that it?
Is what what?
> Can we now close this episode and let The Back Room go back to
> what it was?
Would that be the list of acceptable insults directed at me from just one
thread as per this (ignored) complaint:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=10896&t...9
Or as per the examples of expected and acceptable behaviour given by
yourself and another here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=10907&t...5
> I was tempted at the weekend just to block your posts
Would these be the complaints from myself, the requests for an explanation,
the requests for an indication of where I had been forewarned, the request
for clarification of which of my posts were causing a problem and/or whether
it was the people I was responing to that were offended, or third parties?
> but that seems to me
> to be a counterproductive way of going about things.
So you decided to go for the productive alternative: having "named and
shamed" me you then just chose to ignore MY complaints and my requests for
clarification.
> But (in the way that
> you, at your own site, demand a certain standard of behaviour)
Which is?
"Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and
comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are
fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof."
I have never deleted posts except for duplicates (usually?) at the posters
request.
Censorship amounts to replacing vowels in obscenities with asterisks.
If I've pulled someone up it's been openly, light heartedly and good
naturedly about a specific identifiable point to their face, as you would in
a pub discussion.
The people I give the hardest times (most abuse?) to are the one, whilst I
might disagree with them, I respect the most. And I get exactly the same
back.
Is it legal, or decent, or honest to insult, slander, name and shame,
deprive of the right to reply?
Is the net a nursery, or vicarage tea party?
> I wish you'd
> extend the same level of courtesy to our forum.
Well, I must let fly with a "Triple Errrrrrmmmmmmm" here, clearly a
seriously abusive and threatening, not just condescending
Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmm, obviously deliberately designed to be three times as
intimidating and offensive as as a standard Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm:
Examples please?
As per the cut and paste from your old examples linked above?
I've asked for an indication of WHERE my problem posts are.
I've asked for an indication of WHERE you have indicated I have been going
over the top, and/or what alternative nicknames you have used so that I
could search them out myself.
I've asked for an indication of who I have offended, and how, and whether my
posts offended the people I was replying to or third parties.
I have even tried to get round your refusal to help me out on this by
posting general apologies and an explanation of my style
> And, just because you can
> shout louder,
Again examples please. Whilst I do "shout" in a jokey "raging" way
frequently on some forums where the response is appropriate and in context,
I can't recall doing it here. And if I have emphasised anything
"inappropriately" again I'm more than happy to be advised of it so that I
can learn from my mistakes. But again you have declined to do so.
As for:
> and because you are maybe more practised in rhetoric than the
> majority of contributors, please don't try to use these to carry your
> point against all-comers.
Again, examples please.
I only try to do that where the person I am replying to can obviously (in my
mind) hold their own, has a point worth "debating" and seems willing so to
do.
Unfortunately I don't know everything, and I'm not a mindreader, so for
example if someone claims they don't want to carry on arguing a point all
night, and then do exactly that, which ever interpretation I accept, there's
a chance that I'm in the wrong.
But then again, if it's "against all-comers", surely it must be me who is
the offended party, being intimidated, attacked, and even abused and
insulted by everyone else, including the moderator.
Which reminds me, did I mention attack, abuse, or insult (literal) before?
So practiced rhetoric against all-comers (no vulgarity, obscenity or
personal abuse) is a big no-no!
Attack, personal abuse and insult aimed at me is OK?
[Especially secret, behind my back, "confidential" attack, personal abuse and insult aimed at me?]
> If there is only one opinion -- yours -- to be heard,
> then there is no discussion anymore.
If my opinion is drowned out by the above from all-comers then there is a
discussion?!
Or if I state my opinion (which may be completely factual and totally right)
once, and I allow all-comers to to tear it to bits with their responses
(which may be mistaken, spin, lies or worse) without replying, is that
discussion??
> Martyn
@Backroom?
No relation?
Was that whole thread, complete with clique, your subtle hint?
As I said, I'm not a mindreader.
I thought I was in a discussion with a reasonable bloke with common sense
and a sense of humour.
Even I make mistakes.
bogush
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm
Alternatively SHUT THE FC*K UP .
YOU DON'T *HAVE* TO READ ANYTHING UNDER MY SIGNATURE OR THAT STARTS WITH A "CONDESCENDING" ER************* OR "OFFENSIVE" H***************
OR WOULD THAT SPOIL *YOUR* SCHOOLBOY FUN
PS I *NEVER* "TRY TO HAVE THE LAST WORD": I TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THINGS - WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON, OR MYSELF, IS RIGHT OR WRONG (AND IF I HAPPEN TO BE RIGHT, THAT MAKES ME WRONG?!?!?).
IF THIS IS ILLEGAL ON THIS BOARD FEEL FREE TO SHOOT *ME* DOWN.
PS AND *THIS* IS SHOUTING, BUT IT'S *NOT* BULLYING - IT'S SELF DEFENCE AGAINST THE PLAYGROUND BULLIES GANGING UP ON SOMEONE WHO UPSETS THE IN CROWD WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY, AND THEY ALONE, ARE THE ARBITERS OF "STYLE" IN THEIR "SCHOOL".
AND YES COMPLETE WITH (FOR, I HOPE THE FIRST, AND THE LAST, TIME) VULGARITY AND CRUDITY.
I SUGGEST THE PC WHITER THAN WHITE SANCTIMONIOUS POSTERS AMONGST YOU READ YOUR *OWN* POSTS THROUGH TWICE BEFORE POSTING.
BETTER STILL: READING THE POSTS YOU ARE "REPLYING" TO *AT LEAST ONCE* MIGHT BE AN EVEN *BETTER* IDEA.
PPS That was even better than an apology or explanation, I think I feel better now, even without the thoughtfully recommended psychiatric preparations.
If you're unlucky: rant over ;-)
If not, I'm off :-(
PPPS Nearly forgot, when was trying to get to the bottom of an anti car/motorist comment NOT getting onto the subject of motoring, which is, I recall, where all this started, and so the thing you are complaining of all along - again the double standards of the playground?!
|
