romarni123 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Has Dan been threatened by Shoosmiths or Cart or is it just an assumption .If so he only had to say and everyone would have agreed it was the right thing to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boathunter Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 He's probably been zonked with an order forbidding even mentioning it on here or I'm sure he would have said something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romarni123 Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 He's probably been zonked with an order forbidding even mentioning it on here or I'm sure he would have said something. I think MTB might have dropped him in it then by mentioning it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Marshall Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I assumed those two threads got locked because they were breaking too many of the site's guidelines re name calling, personal information being posted etc. That would have been quite enough without all the conspiracy theories appearing here. There are some people who don't seem to be able to live without there being a conspiracy against them, be it CRT or the mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichM Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Well who has had a post removed this evening? Lark Boy has, as have I anybody else? Phil I removed some content via the database which had missing or incomplete data, while the maintenance was being done this weekend. Basically the web server stopped serving requests for a short period when the database server consumed most of the resources following a maintenance task. As I alluded to in another topic, some of the maintenance work is now being offloaded to another server to prevent a recurrence. Sorry to those impacted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerra Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 All I would say about the locked threads is, it must be one heck of a discussion, as the last post is from a mod which says Locked pending discussion by moderating about content of thread. That's a 9 day discussion! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchcrawler Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I have tried to explain to folk before that racism is about races. Most nations comprise many races. For those that do Facebook, for the others sorry. https://www.facebook.com/carriesohnomamasoffhermedsagain/photos/a.216740615118645.49101.216713225121384/995320000594032/?type=3&theater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 He's probably been zonked with an order forbidding even mentioning it on here or I'm sure he would have said something. The is nothing in the act or the regulations regarding websites that permits a gagging order, that would have to come I believe from a judge and I personal doubt a judge would give one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutts Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Nothing wrong with that, roots should go deep. Be thankful for the soft and easy on the ear East Anglian accent, you could be stuck with something like Geordie or Scouse Or even bleedin' Welsh !!! anyway. earlier today i saw a slightly bedraggled looking fox by a bridge in an inaccessible place. I was out in dinghy with my children - youngest who is 4 looked sadly at the fox and said can we feed him. I said no he is a wild animal leave him he can sort it out. maybe he is old and about to die. last thing you want in a dinghy is a fox couple of hours later 2 fire engines and an inflatable turned up. wtf Mr Fox is alive and as far as I know very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 In theory. In practice, Dan gets hassled by solicitors and has to rely on a third party to get him out of their sights. Why bother, it's easier to pull the thread You'll have noticed we are very, very short of moderators at the moment, let alone ones who want to get involved with solicitors for a canal forum they volunteer to moderate Richard Sorry that is I believe part of the package that is taken on when you decide to own/run a website or forum, at least that is what the law expects. It has been designed to be a simple paper exercise all done by email. Nice and simple 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NigelMoore Posted October 17, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) whatever the circumstances, Nigel is unlikeley to post on eels, cassette vs pump-out or diesel prices on the Shroppie theads, so his input has ceased with the removal of interest from the forum of his expertise related threads. This is pretty well exactly the case. I am not banned; I have no particular ‘allegiance’ to transfer, nor am I flouncing off anywhere, but it has been forbidden to discuss the content of the locked topics or to start others dealing with the same subjects, on penalty of being suspended. There is a peculiarity about this following so close on what almost amounted to judicial approval of my use of this site as a resource for boaters over legal issues, but the rules of the playpen are those of playpen owner [to crib from Judge Judy]. For so long as I used the site for the purpose of promoting my own ideas as to how the running of the waterways should be improved, I felt it appropriate to contribute via a nominal standing order, which also gave a feeling of a stake in the site. None of that any longer applies, but at least I can still provide the information, updates and commentaries elsewhere – it is just a small pity that this site no longer wishes to provide that platform. No complaint – just a fact of life and I do not wish anyone to feel at risk because of me. I do agree with Geo though; any genuine risk of libel suits over my content [i wish] would be down to me alone, because I do not hide under a pseudonym or ‘user name’; CaRT have demonstrated that they know exactly who posts my input, in copying them to the Court. But as I say, it is not my call now that I do not contribute towards the upkeep of the site. Some have hinted that locking the threads was for the protection of the protagonists’ privacy who were not forum members. That, in Leigh’s case at least, seems too absurd given the Court’s quoting of Leigh’s wishes in this respect, so that can hardly comprise logical grounds. As to suggestions that CaRT &/or Shoosmiths might have done some leaning, that seems improbably stupid even for them; a direct conduit to the thinking of the perceived opposition has been cut off, and I would hardly have thought them so thin-skinned and unprofessional that they would willingly forgo that advantage for the sake of any affronted feelings. To those who have voiced kind words over my input – thank you; I am human enough to be glad knowing that some have seen value in my contributions. Hopefully enough such material has survived the occasional deletions of posts and whole threads for this to remain a potentially useful resource. The biggest personal regret is that I will no longer have the benefit of some oppositional posters here, with their reasoned rebuttals of some of my arguments; being denied such worthwhile opponents as mayalld is a serious loss. However gratifying agreement may be, the most value comes from thoughtful disagreement. Obliquely apropos – I do hope that I have not left too much of a ‘fluffy bunny’ reputation behind me; it would be dreadful if my occasional more ascerbic bouts had proved too subtle for the sharpness to be noticed. edit to get a name right - in response to Geo's comments on liability. Edited October 17, 2016 by NigelMoore 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscan Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 This is pretty well exactly the case. I am not banned; I have no particular ‘allegiance’ to transfer, nor am I flouncing off anywhere, but it has been forbidden to discuss the content of the locked topics or to start others dealing with the same subjects, on penalty of being suspended. There is a peculiarity about this following so close on what almost amounted to judicial approval of my use of this site as a resource for boaters over legal issues, but the rules of the playpen are those of playpen owner [to crib from Judge Judy]. For so long as I used the site for the purpose of promoting my own ideas as to how the running of the waterways should be improved, I felt it appropriate to contribute via a nominal standing order, which also gave a feeling of a stake in the site. None of that any longer applies, but at least I can still provide the information, updates and commentaries elsewhere – it is just a small pity that this site no longer wishes to provide that platform. No complaint – just a fact of life and I do not wish anyone to feel at risk because of me. I do agree with Graham though; any genuine risk of libel suits over my content [i wish] would be down to me alone, because I do not hide under a pseudonym or ‘user name’; CaRT have demonstrated that they know exactly who posts my input, in copying them to the Court. But as I say, it is not my call now that I do not contribute towards the upkeep of the site. Some have hinted that locking the threads was for the protection of the protagonists’ privacy who were not forum members. That, in Leigh’s case at least, seems too absurd given the Court’s quoting of Leigh’s wishes in this respect, so that can hardly comprise logical grounds. As to suggestions that CaRT &/or Shoosmiths might have done some leaning, that seems improbably stupid even for them; a direct conduit to the thinking of the perceived opposition has been cut off, and I would hardly have thought them so thin-skinned and unprofessional that they would willingly forgo that advantage for the sake of any affronted feelings. To those who have voiced kind words over my input – thank you; I am human enough to be glad knowing that some have seen value in my contributions. Hopefully enough such material has survived the occasional deletions of posts and whole threads for this to remain a potentially useful resource. The biggest personal regret is that I will no longer have the benefit of some oppositional posters here, with their reasoned rebuttals of some of my arguments; being denied such worthwhile opponents as mayalld is a serious loss. However gratifying agreement may be, the most value comes from thoughtful disagreement. Obliquely apropos – I do hope that I have not left too much of a ‘fluffy bunny’ reputation behind me; it would be dreadful if my occasional more ascerbic bouts had proved too subtle for the sharpness to be noticed. I am saddened that you are no longer able to contribute to the threads now blocked on here, I assume I will now have to read your contributions on another social media site. I remember when cotswoldsman got support on here for crowdfunding a transcript of a court case. Regrettably I can't see that happening now , regardless of whether you agreed with him or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
churchward Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Obliquely apropos – I do hope that I have not left too much of a ‘fluffy bunny’ reputation behind me; it would be dreadful if my occasional more ascerbic bouts had proved too subtle for the sharpness to be noticed. No worries your safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil. Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 This is pretty well exactly the case. I am not banned; I have no particular ‘allegiance’ to transfer, nor am I flouncing off anywhere, but it has been forbidden to discuss the content of the locked topics or to start others dealing with the same subjects, on penalty of being suspended. There is a peculiarity about this following so close on what almost amounted to judicial approval of my use of this site as a resource for boaters over legal issues, but the rules of the playpen are those of playpen owner [to crib from Judge Judy]. For so long as I used the site for the purpose of promoting my own ideas as to how the running of the waterways should be improved, I felt it appropriate to contribute via a nominal standing order, which also gave a feeling of a stake in the site. None of that any longer applies, but at least I can still provide the information, updates and commentaries elsewhere – it is just a small pity that this site no longer wishes to provide that platform. No complaint – just a fact of life and I do not wish anyone to feel at risk because of me. I do agree with Graham though; any genuine risk of libel suits over my content [i wish] would be down to me alone, because I do not hide under a pseudonym or ‘user name’; CaRT have demonstrated that they know exactly who posts my input, in copying them to the Court. But as I say, it is not my call now that I do not contribute towards the upkeep of the site. Some have hinted that locking the threads was for the protection of the protagonists’ privacy who were not forum members. That, in Leigh’s case at least, seems too absurd given the Court’s quoting of Leigh’s wishes in this respect, so that can hardly comprise logical grounds. As to suggestions that CaRT &/or Shoosmiths might have done some leaning, that seems improbably stupid even for them; a direct conduit to the thinking of the perceived opposition has been cut off, and I would hardly have thought them so thin-skinned and unprofessional that they would willingly forgo that advantage for the sake of any affronted feelings. To those who have voiced kind words over my input – thank you; I am human enough to be glad knowing that some have seen value in my contributions. Hopefully enough such material has survived the occasional deletions of posts and whole threads for this to remain a potentially useful resource. The biggest personal regret is that I will no longer have the benefit of some oppositional posters here, with their reasoned rebuttals of some of my arguments; being denied such worthwhile opponents as mayalld is a serious loss. However gratifying agreement may be, the most value comes from thoughtful disagreement. Obliquely apropos – I do hope that I have not left too much of a ‘fluffy bunny’ reputation behind me; it would be dreadful if my occasional more ascerbic bouts had proved too subtle for the sharpness to be noticed. Thanks for the update as you see it. Most are well aware of the other place, where it is still possible to follow what is occurring on these topical issues. I do think it about time the site owner addressed what the bloody hell is going on. He has been on, but seems not to want to engage at any level, the concerns raised by a significant number of his long standing forum members, and I do not include myself in that list.( Perhaps list is the wrong word to use given the revelations as to what some mods have been up to ) So come on Daniel, time to let us know what you think, and more importantly what you are going to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post nicknorman Posted October 17, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 There's a lot of fictional snippets in this thread by the same one or two people repeatedly guessing at (but stating as if fact), the apparent motivations of moderators - many of which are being falsely accused of making self-indulgent or egotistical decisions - which is simply made-up conjecture and is not just unhelpful to Dan and the mods but could be perceived as stirring up bad feeling. This is a moderated forum. Accept that and say something helpful if you'd like to influence it in a positive way. Dan has already said he'll watch this thread to glean some ideas for taking moderation forward. It's not necessary to stir and make personal gripes about assumed motivations of the volunteer moderators giving their time freely and already facing grief for individual decisions, in order to make this forum a much nicer place for the many, than it had been for a long while. (Constructive) criticism and gratitude are not mutually exclusive. Assumptions about egos and motivations adds to the bad feeling that made the forum a right miserable place to be last year or so and stifles any useful contribution you're trying to make. Matty might not have helped the case by titling the thread with what amounted to a derogatory personal insult at a named member of the forum, which somewhat drew attention away from some of the valid points his opening post was making. I've enjoyed the forum recently. On the whole, the kind of threads that have been more heavily moderated are ones that I have avoided after reading a few posts anyway, because they've deteriorated into familiar patterns of contention. I'm not interested in that. And so their moderation has not caused me any concern or spoiled any enjoyment of the forum for me. I have noticed a few members of the forum disappear - the only ones I've noticed were ones who used to be insulting or cause trouble - and I am thoroughly enjoying their absence. Thank you, mods. If, as I read above, some members of this forum have faced warnings or been banned from here for being derogatory about CWDF people on another forum, again I am more than happy with that moderation. Backstabbing demonstrates childish playground tactics, shows a person's true colours, and it's not as if people don't talk to each other and find out. Not only that, depending on the tone of those comments there are fine lines between legal and illegal interpretation of derogatory comments, especially if they can be perceived as harassing or inciting any kind of aggression - even if just online. This is a privately owned forum and I support the owner's decision, supported by his team of moderators, if they consider that sort of person not the type of person wanted contributing to this online community too. This is my opinion. Some will agree. Some will think it stinks. Such is life. Let us remember that you were a prime motivator to have removed from the forum anyone who didn't share your values. You said as much, although sulked when I read it back to you. Your urge to have them disposed of extended to your leaving the forum in high dudgeon aka major flouncing with a lot of noise. Therefore it cannot be surprising that you relish the elimination of those who disagreed with you, although crowing is never a pretty emotion when laid bare as you have just done. Perosonally I think it a shame that you have "won" for the time being, but history will show which side you were on, and hopefully in time the tables will be turned and you will be extinguished for being a bigot. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post saltysplash Posted October 17, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 I still think the opposite of fluffybunny is a spikey hedgehog!! Spiney Norman ******Warning****** Flounce Alert********** Joining this discussion late I had a number of multi quotes ready to reply but reading the last 12 pages most of them have been covered by others and i've run out of greenies. The only thing I have left to add is........I am shocked and saddened by PaulC's post and it implications but not surprised as it confirms many of my suspicions as how CWDF was being run. For the majority of you left on this forum I wish you well, for those with blinkers on I hope you will finally have your 'road to damascus' moment. Mods or Admin Please delete my account or block me. Many thanks 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Vectis Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Despite what I wrote last night re bowing out. With respect to post #715: An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Ambrose Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Despite what I wrote last night re bowing out. With respect to post #715: An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. Surely that would apply to both parties.Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlt Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. We've all done it though haven't we? Both our daughters voted 'Remain'. The younger, 26, said she voted that way because she "Believes in human rights and is not a racist bigot". Edited October 18, 2016 by carlt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 . . being denied such worthwhile opponents as mayalld is a serious loss. Eh? Has Dave Mayall left? If so, that would be a pity, as his posts have been consistently entertaining, informative and thought-provoking over a long period of time. He is still listed as a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Pegg Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) Eh? Has Dave Mayall left? If so, that would be a pity, as his posts have been consistently entertaining, informative and thought-provoking over a long period of time. He is still listed as a member. No. Nigel's point is that without the LR vs CRT thread here he can no longer debate issues with Dave. And I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on Dave joining the other side so they can continue the discourse. Nigel's comments on his adversary are very interesting. Shows you what can be achieved despite diverse points of view. Credit to them both. JP Edited October 18, 2016 by Captain Pegg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicknorman Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. I don't see a need to invent a new definition for the word. Someone who disagrees with another's point of view may or may not be described as a bigot, for a bigot is someone who can't tolerate another's differing point of view and wants to deny them the right to hold and express it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athy Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 No. Nigel's point is that without the LR vs CRT thread here he can no longer debate issues with Dave. And I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on Dave joining the other side so they can continue the discourse. Nigel's comments on his adversary are very interesting. Shows you what can be achieved despite diverse points of view. Credit to them both. JP Aye aye, Cap'n. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Despite what I wrote last night re bowing out. With respect to post #715: An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. Despite what I wrote last night re bowing out. With respect to post #715: An individual who disagrees with another individual's point of view may be described as a 'bigot'. Discuss. Nick calling BSP a bigot in 715 paradoxically seems a good example of bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 I see that the 'list' of members that Paul refers to has now been published elsewhere on 'social media' by a conscientious individual. Some of the words used in 'describing' of the members are extremely unpleasant and if used in 'open forum' would have (should have) resulted in a ban. If Dan & the Admin condoned this list and its 'bullying' then maybe questions should be asked as to the future of the forum in its current form. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts