An announcement regarding HF and scrat

Since this has become so controversial, I'm about to make each of them inactive until we can figure out what to do.

I apologize for springing their return on the forum.

I liked HF,....maybe in hindsight it would have been better to discuss anyones return in the mods room before inviting anyone back.

well...if hindsight were foresight....beggars would ride horses

Lord Foul wrote:well...if hindsight were foresight....beggars would ride horses

Thats too deep for me.

It seems a shame to lose any long time poster to make way for previously banned posters.
But I feel for HF as he was making a good return imo.

HF is to be let back on provisionally. We're discussing this with him.

Scrat's gone. I doubt he even knew he was oh-so-briefly reinstated.

The general consensus among the mods that were present tonight, was that scrat wasn’t welcome and HF could return as long as he abides by the rules that are set out for him by admin.

Lord Foul wrote:well...if hindsight were foresight....beggars would ride horses

I thought you were history.  

And Newsfix lurches further to the alt right.

Angry Andy wrote:And Newsfix lurches further to the alt right.

You’re so stupid.

Scrat was abusive and nasty. Remember you had to apologise to me because of the vile stuff you and he were saying elsewhere? You like that kind of human?

Remember what he said about Fred’s wife?

You’re so stupid. Everything is about politics to you

Angry Andy wrote:And Newsfix lurches further to the alt right.

Honestly Andy, take a look at the top 20 posters down below.

The vast majority are pretty neutral OR lean to the Left.

There are a handful on the Right, and 2 of them are banned

In fact, sad as it may be, I just did a count. 9 bonafide Left Wingers in the top 20, and I'd say that many others swing Left on a lot of issues (Lord Foul is probably the most socialist among us where economics are concerned!)

I'm going to read through the rules to see if the rules that Ben has put on my husband are in there , otherwise they are pointless .

I don't what to think really I find it insulting and also protecting gays on here are they that sensitive and how about my faith and my husband's faith can that be protected too as it really does make us kind of offended it being attacked all the time ?

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I'm going to read through the rules to see if the rules that Ben has put on my husband are in there , otherwise they are pointless .

I don't what to think really I find it insulting and also protecting gays on here are they that sensitive and how about my faith and my husband's faith can that be protected too as it really does make us kind of offended it being attacked all the time ?

Everything is open to criticism here.

The conditions put to your husband are based on his past conduct. He is lucky to be here. We haven't asked a lot. Best not to push it.

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:I'm going to read through the rules to see if the rules that Ben has put on my husband are in there , otherwise they are pointless .

I don't what to think really I find it insulting and also protecting gays on here are they that sensitive and how about my faith and my husband's faith can that be protected too as it really does make us kind of offended it being attacked all the time ?

Everything is open to criticism here.

The conditions put to your husband are based on his past conduct. He is lucky to be here. We haven't asked a lot. Best not to push it.

So you have made rules specifically for HF , who if you remember was banned for no reason at all which if you remember many at the time said what was he banned for an were angry about it .

Setting rules against a single persons views shows what sort of forum this really is, how can you have a debate forum that only allows one side of the debate . If anything this forum perfectly shadows the world , certain groups can say and do as they like , while good people are banned from comment .

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Everything is open to criticism here.

The conditions put to your husband are based on his past conduct. He is lucky to be here. We haven't asked a lot. Best not to push it.

So you have made rules specifically for HF , who if you remember was banned for no reason at all which if you remember many at the time said what was he banned for an were angry about it .

Setting rules against a single persons views shows what sort of forum this really is, how can you have a debate forum that only allows one side of the debate . If anything this forum perfectly shadows the world , certain groups can say and do as they like , while good people are banned from comment .

Nobody has made a specific rule for HF, you simple do not understand

Your husband has made in the past made at times homophobic views about posters

Not only is that rightly against the law in this country, within the work place, but also rightly on here.

Your husband has been allowed back in on a precondition, based on past record

So there is no rule singling him out. Just like anyone suspended from work or school. They are given another chance, but if they fall foul againt of the rules, they would be expelled.

In other words, HF has every right to be critical of homosexuality, but not abuse people because they are homosexual

Do you understand the difference?

This rule also applies to every single poster.

Just as anyone can be critical of Christianity, but not abuse someone because they are Christian

This rule also applies to everyone

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well...if hindsight were foresight....beggars would ride horses

I thought you were history.  

Sorry to dash your hopes

Angry Andy wrote:And Newsfix lurches further to the alt right.

Years ago folk used to be ridiculed at for seeing Reds under the bed. You should check your chamber pot to make sure that there are no, er, closet Fascists in it, Andy.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:well...if hindsight were foresight....beggars would ride horses

I thought you were history.  

Lol....was you hoping to fill the gap Quill?

Didge wrote:

Vicar of Dibley (vod) wrote:

So you have made rules specifically for HF , who if you remember was banned for no reason at all which if you remember many at the time said what was he banned for an were angry about it .

Setting rules against a single persons views shows what sort of forum this really is, how can you have a debate forum that only allows one side of the debate . If anything this forum perfectly shadows the world , certain groups can say and do as they like , while good people are banned from comment .

Nobody has made a specific rule for HF, you simple do not understand

Your husband has made in the past made at times homophobic views about posters

Not only is that rightly against the law in this country, within the work place, but also rightly on here.

Your husband has been allowed back in on a precondition, based on past record

So there is no rule singling him out. Just like anyone suspended from work or school. They are given another chance, but if they fall foul againt of the rules, they would be expelled.

In other words, HF has every right to be critical of homosexuality, but not abuse people because they are homosexual

Do you understand the difference?

This rule also applies to every single poster.

Just as anyone can be critical of Christianity, but not abuse someone because they are Christian

This rule also applies to everyone

Oh, if only everyone could stop attacking other posters personally....the forum...nay the whole world, would be a better place.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I thought you were history.  

Lol....was you hoping to fill the gap Quill?

Heavens no! My bid is for the legal appeals job, not just any old mod. It is not for my benefit, but to bring a degree of due process of rule-making and rule-enforcing to the forum.

Most of the time I think Vic does a proper job as mod, if often just based only on hunches. It's the rule-of-hunches that I would like to turn into rule-of-law.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Lol....was you hoping to fill the gap Quill?

Heavens no!  My bid is for the legal appeals job, not just any old mod.  It is not for my benefit, but to bring a degree of due process of rule-making and rule-enforcing to the forum.

Most of the time I think Vic does a proper job as mod, if often just based only on hunches.  It's the rule-of-hunches that I would like to turn into rule-of-law.

The legal appeals job? I didnt know there was a vacancy for that.
I wonder if I can apply to be official tea lady.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Heavens no!  My bid is for the legal appeals job, not just any old mod.  It is not for my benefit, but to bring a degree of due process of rule-making and rule-enforcing to the forum.

Most of the time I think Vic does a proper job as mod, if often just based only on hunches.  It's the rule-of-hunches that I would like to turn into rule-of-law.

The legal appeals job? I didnt know there was a vacancy for that.
I wonder if I can apply to be official tea lady.

There isn't. I invented it.

By all means, if you qualify as a tea lady, and Ben feels the need for a tea lady, go for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The legal appeals job? I didnt know there was a vacancy for that.
I wonder if I can apply to be official tea lady.

There isn't.  I invented it.  

By all means, if you qualify as a tea lady, and Ben feels the need for a tea lady, go for it.  

Tea lady and why a tea lady quill?

Is that not a typical sterptype aimed at middle aged women?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There isn't.  I invented it.  

By all means, if you qualify as a tea lady, and Ben feels the need for a tea lady, go for it.  

Tea lady and why a tea lady quill?

Is that not a typical sterptype aimed at middle aged women?

It was me who mentioned tea lady first Didge...for a joke.
And it would b a joke because my OH is the official teamaker in this house....he is far better qualified for the job than I am.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Tea lady and why a tea lady quill?

Is that not a typical sterptype aimed at middle aged women?

It was me who mentioned tea lady first Didge...for a joke.
And it would b a joke because my OH is the official teamaker in this house....he is far better qualified for the job than I am.

You spoilt my fun Syl, as was going to wind him up  

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Tea lady and why a tea lady quill?

Is that not a typical sterptype aimed at middle aged women?

It was me who mentioned tea lady first Didge...for a joke.
And it would b a joke because my OH is the official teamaker in this house....he is far better qualified for the job than I am.

But it is illustrative: didge, completely unaware of what is said, and the ideas going on around him, diving down another rabbit-hole and off on another goose-chase. (Forgive the mixed metaphor. )

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

It was me who mentioned tea lady first Didge...for a joke.
And it would b a joke because my OH is the official teamaker in this house....he is far better qualified for the job than I am.

But it is illustrative: didge, completely unaware of what is said, and the ideas going on around him, diving down another rabbit-hole and off on another goose-chase.  (Forgive the mixed metaphor.    )

I was very aware actually, sadly syl spoilt my fun

This would be  me serving tea...one minute in.

Syl wrote:This would be  me serving tea...one minute in.

I thought more like this Syl   

Hahaha...I love it.

..."and he's lying on the bed with a glass of filisan a pith helmet and spats"

Didge wrote:I was very aware actually, sadly syl spoilt my fun

Ahhh...so you don't wish to be taken seriously? That changes my whole perception of you, didge...all along, you have been a just a jokester and a trickster.

Syl wrote:Hahaha...I love it.

..."and he's lying on the bed with a glass of filisan a pith helmet and spats"