Jump to content

Are we all sheep?


matty40s
 Share

Featured Posts

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

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

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

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

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 smile.png

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 laugh.png

 

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

 

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

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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!smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by carlt
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

.
.
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

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 by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 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.