PMs - Implication by Tess

Post by **WhyPhilWhy?** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:59 am

Tess wrote:Private Messages.... amazing things they are hey Steve(wpw).

Yes the Mods can read em, or at least those with Admin powers can if they feel a need to use those powers, we can only trust them not to abuse their power.

I take it from the above entry in the Personal Messages thread that Tess may be implying that I sent her a PM that I might, in some way, be embarrassed by if it was made public.

Since you opened the door Tess, here it is:

From: WhyPhilWhy?
To: Tess
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:18 am
Subject: Your latest campaign against Joff

Tess,

It appears to the Mods that you are again ramping up your campaign of criticism of Joff. First the "Do we need the Barracks" poll, then an ill-disguised crack in the latest Gold Jacket thread.

We ask you to stop now, otherwise you will earn a rest from Nick's.

It doesn't particularly matter whether you are right, wrong or somewhere in between. We will not put up with it.

Thanks.....Steve

I think its probably the last sentence to which Tess objects, however its certainly not the first time we have asked Tess to lay off.

I believe most people with a history on Nick's will find our stance reasonable. Similar requests have been sent to others over the years, and we only do so to end constant public bickering that many of us find so tiresome.

Brewer's Droop · Post by **Brewer's Droop** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:53 pm

Post by **David** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:33 pm

What I don't understand is that, even when you and Joffa have both 'made up', you seem to want to go on with it Tess.

Was it too good to be true?

pica · Post by **pica** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:13 am

David wrote:What I don't understand is that, even when you and Joffa have both 'made up', you seem to want to go on with it Tess.

Was it too good to be true?

David , maybe this will partly explain it for you:

To quote Tess:
"During our discussions Joff mentioned he could see he and I becoming great friends, I strongly pointed out to him that would probably never happen. I buried the hatchet to create a bit of peace for myself when I'm on Nicks, my thoughts on Joffa HAVE NOT changed. I just don't voice them anymore."

Ya gotta query that last sentence!!

Brewer's Droop · Post by **Brewer's Droop** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:39 pm

Post by **WhyPhilWhy?** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:16 pm

Sadly Tess, its only you who would rationalise any potential "banning" as resulting from you "having a different point of view".

Post by **WhyPhilWhy?** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:45 pm

Tess,

I know you to be a reasonably intelligent person, so its hard to fathom the basis of your misunderstanding, unless its deliberate. I'm also quite sure you understand the concept of context.

However, to put it simply, it is the Mods universal perception that almost anything that Joff posts, or that is posted about Joff, acts like a red rag to a bull, and you (too often) find it necessary to post a comment. Mostly, those comments are critical. Often, in our view that criticism, is unduly harsh and directed personally.

Whether you think it or not, to many people your actions appear to border upon an an obsession.

This being the internet, a proportion of Nicksters will instantly respond based on their perception of that obsession, and others will react to that reaction, and we Mods then spend unwelcome time cleaning up the mess - time that we would rather spend reading DTM's latest morsel trawled from trough that is Big Footy.

Simply - its not your point of view that's the issue. Its not true that "anything I post can cause my banning." Its the fact that with regard to all things Joff-related, you just can't "let it go".

At this point we don't give a flying ray chamberlain who started it, who perpetuated it, who else is targeting whom. Again, we just ask you to stop.

Dave The Man · Post by **Dave The Man** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:56 pm

Be careful Tess

Dale61 · Post by **Dale61** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:35 pm

At least Tess, you don't post the same image more than once in the same thread, and be allowed to do so on a regular basis.

I now expect this post to be quoted, with the reply 'Typical bigot tactics'.

Brewer's Droop · Post by **Brewer's Droop** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:59 pm

member34258 · Post by **member34258** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:36 pm

Dale61 wrote:At least Tess, you don't post the same image more than once in the same thread, and be allowed to do so on a regular basis.

I now expect this post to be quoted, with the reply 'Typical bigot tactics'.

Have to agree.
Wonder if he/she has copyright permission Dale?
http://www.bicycle-world-records.com/

Dale61 · Post by **Dale61** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:47 pm

Good point member.

I just checked the link you gave and there is a copyright notice on the website. However, the image is copyrighted to Guinness Book Of Records, so that site, and Droopy are both in breach of copyright (not that it matters here!).

The breach of copyright card only gets thrown here when it best suits, or to win an argument.

Brewer's Droop · Post by **Brewer's Droop** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:34 pm

Dale61 wrote:I just checked the link you gave and there is a copyright notice on the website. However, the image is copyrighted to Guinness Book Of Records, so that site, and Droopy are both in breach of copyright (not that it matters here!).

member34258 · Post by **member34258** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:13 am

At least it's a different image I suppose.
Thats progress?

Dale61 · Post by **Dale61** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:52 am

It's not the first time he's used that image before. At least he's not silly enough to link images from the porn sites he would regularly visit.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

PMs - Implication by Tess

PMs - Implication by Tess