Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s

Featured Posts

He may as well have been banned thoughp as the threads he posted on have gone. Days if not weeks of well thought out and composed arguement obliterated. There was a lot a fascinating discussion on those threads.

 

Eh? I can see all Nigel Moores contributions, - what is going on here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That being the case, why did Matty40s mention him by name implying that he was one of the banned troubelmakers?

 

Just curious. I'd be even more curious if I was Nigel Moore.

Because no one actually knows who has been banned, or who has just left, so things are getting invented and then taken as gospel, which is why I advised salt.

Tea's ready. Now that's interesting. Shepherd's pie and apple crumble. Yum.

 

Eh? I can see all Nigel Moores contributions, - what is going on here?

People are talking nonsense. And getting all het up about nothing important and things that didn't happen. Got to go, wine's being poured.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You enjoyed robust debate on political topics often getting into some pretty heated discussion with our right wing fellow members.

 

Well yes, I do but.....

There came a point when some of the more extreme amongst us stopped debating and started baiting (the "I can be as racist as I like because if you call me racist it means you lose the argument" comments were particularly notable) and something needed to be done.

Because people were just shouting at each other and not listening.

 

Unfortunately it swung completely the other way and now you and I (and the less vitriolic right wing members of which there are several) have had the opportunity of intelligent debate stifled completely.

Action and reaction?

 

I believe it is worth protesting for a return to the pre-hyperbolic days no matter ho tedious you may find it.

What i find tedious is the same anarcholiberal argument being trotted out again and again by posters who seem to live in a world where their opinion is the only one which matters.

Anyway I've said all I want to and I think this discussion is in danger of going round in circles and becoming boring so I'll bow out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because no one actually knows who has been banned, or who has just left, so things are getting invented and then taken as gospel, which is why I advised salt.

Tea's ready. Now that's interesting. Shepherd's pie and apple crumble. Yum.

I prefer gravy with Shepherd's Pie ;)

 

Rog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

Google search for -username- canalworld will reveal if someone is 'no longer an active member'

 

I know that there will be some people like Julynian who actually want to remove themselves from the forum for one reason or another but if you do this search for a member who is no longer posting you will often find that their profile is still open.

 

Some profiles have been deleted and users blocked. This is what is causing some consternation because it is an abuse of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nigel is still a member: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showuser=15607

 

Richard

 

He maybe a member but his threads have been closed, posts deleted and maybe threads deleted

 

 

 

 

 

No no no no

 

You can not be serious huh.png

 

Nigelmoore is still free to post here. Surely. Please ?

 

Where is he supposed to post I understand the threads he was working on have been locked, posts remove or possibly deleted

 

I think he has found another home, where I think he could have the support he needs

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, just short of factual information while suffering from an excess of hearsay.

Which actually applies to both sides of the argument.

 

We only know what people have posted in the respective forums and from where I am sitting I see no real reason to disbelieve either party. My 'denial' comment related to you seemingly dismissing one version as anecdote and the other version as true, this seemingly based on the fact you could only read the versions posted on here, whereas some are prepared to read both versions.

 

There doesn't appear to be any dispute about the drawing up of a 'hit list' though which alone is worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He maybe a member but his threads have been closed, posts deleted and maybe threads deleted

 

 

 

 

 

No no no no

 

You can not be serious huh.png

 

Nigelmoore is still free to post here. Surely. Please ?

 

 

 

As I said before, that simply isn't true. Some of the threads he posted on are locked, that's all.

 

And whether he has stopped posting, lost interest or whatever, I can't see what that has to do with the central issue of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nigel Moore has stated elsewhere that he has not been banned from this forum. His word is good enough for me.

 

Not sure where NM posted that info, I suspect it was not on here, his last post that I can find is 07 October 2016 - 04:38 PM

 

 

ETA I believe the threads were locked on the 8 Oct 2016

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where NM posted that info, I suspect it was not on here, his last post that I can find is 07 October 2016 - 04:38 PM

It wasn't on here. As I mentioned way back he hasn't been banned and he said say on 'another forum'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which actually applies to both sides of the argument.

 

We only know what people have posted in the respective forums and from where I am sitting I see no real reason to disbelieve either party. My 'denial' comment related to you seemingly dismissing one version as anecdote and the other version as true, this seemingly based on the fact you could only read the versions posted on here, whereas some are prepared to read both versions.

 

There doesn't appear to be any dispute about the drawing up of a 'hit list' though which alone is worrying.

Blue string appears to have ignored my question.

So, in a bid to get it answered, anyone involved with (romantically, platonically or otherwise) or part of the moderating team.

Is PaulC' a liar?

Edited by gazza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That being the case, why did Matty40s mention him by name implying that he was one of the banned troubelmakers?

 

Just curious. I'd be even more curious if I was Nigel Moore.

Where did I say he was one of the banned??

 

The fact that CRT or Shoosmiths have threatened Dan with some action if he didn't remove all the legal threads for whatever reason ( I am being very generous to Dan with an assumption here - if it happened, all he had to do was tell us with a matter of fact thread), has removed Nigels informative and legally sound input from CWDF.

Whether this is because Nigel is a MacKenzie friend at a court case soon, whether Nigels advice and previous court wins have allowed offside owned land moorings to be finally allowed after 20 years of not being allowed (fact), whether CRT know they don't have a leg to stand on but Tonys discourse could occasionally verge on the libellous (rich against poor wonderland court fees cases)...I don't know.

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.

 

 

And whether he has stopped posting, lost interest or whatever, I can't see what that has to do with the central issue of this thread.

The central issue of this thread is exactly the reason he and others have stopped posting Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say he was one of the banned??

 

The fact that CRT or Shoosmiths have threatened Dan with some action if he didn't remove all the legal threads for whatever reason ( I am being very generous to Dan with an assumption here - if it happened, all he had to do was tell us with a matter of fact thread), has removed Nigels informative and legally sound input from CWDF.

Whether this is because Nigel is a MacKenzie friend at a court case soon, whether Nigels advice and previous court wins have allowed offside owned land moorings to be finally allowed after 20 years of not being allowed (fact), whether CRT know they don't have a leg to stand on but Tonys discourse could occasionally verge on the libellous (rich against poor wonderland court fees cases)...I don't know.

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.

The central issue of this thread is exactly the reason he and others have stopped posting Neil

 

From what the reading I did of NM's posts I would be extremely surprised if any broke the Defamation 2013 Act or the Deformation 2013 Regulation. That is to my knowledge the only Act under which anyone can ask for a takedown now. I believe that NM's posts would have passed all the tests in the Act & Regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the point. Why would Dan want to get involved in a legal debate with solicitors over what someone else posts for free on his internet forum?

 

Richard

 

It would be nothing to do with the site operator it would go straight to NM. Stuff stays until the matter is settled unless NM decides to take down.

 

DH only get involved if he does not pass stuff on properly to NM.

 

ETA The liability if DH operates correctly is not DH's but NM's

Edited by Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be nothing to do with the site operator it would go straight to NM. Stuff stays until the matter is settled unless NM decides to take down.

 

DH only get involved if he does not pass stuff on properly to NM.

 

ETA The liability if DH operates correctly is not DH's but NM's

 

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

Edited by RLWP
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the point. Why would Dan want to get involved in a legal debate with solicitors over what someone else posts for free on his internet forum?

 

Richard

He doesn't, and if thats the case, all he has to say on here is thread pulled for legal reasons.

Up to now, we do not know whether it is a moderator mistake, a forum crash, a legal threat, a single moderator acting on their own or a bunch of zombies taking over the server. because nobody has been up front about it.

 

You buy an old boat and apparently are only a custodian of the entity until the next owner comes along.

I thought CWDF was like that, it doesn't appear to be now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He doesn't, and if thats the case, all he has to say on here is thread pulled for legal reasons.

Up to now, we do not know whether it is a moderator mistake, a forum crash, a legal threat, a single moderator acting on their own or a bunch of zombies taking over the server. because nobody has been up front about it.

 

You buy an old boat and apparently are only a custodian of the entity until the next owner comes along.

I thought CWDF was like that, it doesn't appear to be now.

 

ISTR there was a message about those threads. Let me search

 

Richard

 

MORE: No, just a pending notice on each thread. One for Dan then

Edited by RLWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to explain to folk before that racism is about races. Most nations comprise many races.

This from the UK 1976 race relations act:

 

 

...In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- " racial grounds " means any of the following grounds,

namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins ; " racial group " means a group of persons defined

by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person's racial group

refer to any racial group into which he falls...

 

Let's have no more nonsense that the definition of racism does not include nationalities in the UK.

I don't think that is the point. Why would Dan want to get involved in a legal debate with solicitors over what someone else posts for free on his internet forum?

 

Richard

I agree with that. I don't see why he or any one else would stick their neck out on behalf of someone else in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say he was one of the banned??

 

The fact that CRT or Shoosmiths have threatened Dan with some action if he didn't remove all the legal threads for whatever reason ( I am being very generous to Dan with an assumption here - if it happened, all he had to do was tell us with a matter of fact thread), has removed Nigels informative and legally sound input from CWDF.

Whether this is because Nigel is a MacKenzie friend at a court case soon, whether Nigels advice and previous court wins have allowed offside owned land moorings to be finally allowed after 20 years of not being allowed (fact), whether CRT know they don't have a leg to stand on but Tonys discourse could occasionally verge on the libellous (rich against poor wonderland court fees cases)...I don't know.

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.

The central issue of this thread is exactly the reason he and others have stopped posting Neil

 

OK I understand the reference now and it all makes sense.

 

For the record I stated that you implied Nigel Moore was one of those to fall foul of the moderators. This was in a retort to Victor Vectis and if you re-read it in context (and by that point in the thread it's a hell of a context...), I think it comes across that you were citing NM as one of the "victims". Without the explanation offered above I couldn't interpret it any other way but I'll accept others may read it different especially if they had the background knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.