Why Has My Thread Title Been Changed To Suit Ben?

[Guest]

I took the title from the newspaper it is from - what's the problem Ben?

Getting a little too stifling in here these days.


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3705-british-woman-locked-up-after-writing-on-facebook-that-iran-is-too-Islamic-accused-of-espionage

[SEXY MAMA]

 

[Guest]

 

Don't you go to sleep on me just yet young lady!   

[SEXY MAMA]

 

Don't you go to sleep on me just yet young lady!    

Okayyyyyy!

[eddie]

 

If it's boring don't join a forum to debate SM
Just saying  ::sexbnan: 

[SEXY MAMA]

 

If it's boring don't join a forum to debate SM
Just saying  ::sexbnan: 

His title was boring and I have every right to post what I want Eddie.
cut the fucking crap with me Eddie

[Guest]

I took the title from the newspaper it is from - what's the problem Ben?

Getting a little too stifling in here these days.


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3705-british-woman-locked-up-after-writing-on-facebook-that-iran-is-too-Islamic-accused-of-espionage

Racist prick.

[eddie]

If it's boring don't join a forum to debate SM
Just saying  ::sexbnan: 

His title was boring and I have every right to post what I want Eddie.
cut the fucking crap with me Eddie

Are you on a period?
How was his title boring??? It was from a newspaper headline.

Don't swear at me. I never swore at you.

[eddie]

I took the title from the newspaper it is from - what's the problem Ben?

Getting a little too stifling in here these days.


http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3705-british-woman-locked-up-after-writing-on-facebook-that-iran-is-too-Islamic-accused-of-espionage

Racist prick.

The story wasn't racist actually.

[SEXY MAMA]

His title was boring and I have every right to post what I want Eddie.
cut the fucking crap with me Eddie

Are you on a period?
How was his title boring??? It was from a newspaper headline.

Don't swear at me. I never swore at you.

Don't try and patronise me Eddie
This thread shouldn't have been posted in news because its not UK news is it?

You were the one who started with me on this thread. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can do?

[Ben Reilly]

It was inaccurate, as I've explained several times already. The woman was arrested and charged with espionage. Her husband is the one making the claim that she was arrested for insulting Islam on Facebook; it is not what she was charged with, however.

[Guest]

Racist prick.

The story wasn't racist actually.

Of course it wasn't , its getting ridiculous everyone so sensitive lol

[Guest]

Oh come on Eddie, we all know Andy's motives and how he'll twist anything to suit his agenda. A total idiot would have realised the Mail had twisted the title to suit. He wanted the title up there to bang on about Muslims again. We're not daft and we're not stupid and we know exactly what he is up to. Thankfully, so does Ben. And it's his forum.

[Guest]

Racist prick.

The story wasn't racist actually.

Racist defender to the racists rescue!!!!!! ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Also.....Why is this in general news when it isn't a news story?

Shouldn't it be moved, or better dumped!

[Guest]

It was inaccurate, as I've explained several times already. The woman was arrested and charged with espionage. Her husband is the one making the claim that she was arrested for insulting Islam on Facebook; it is not what she was charged with, however.

He obviously knows more then about it

[Guest]

So Eddie you believe in misleading titles then?



Read






he BBC’s Panorama programme yesterday focused on attitudes towards ‘honour’ amongst Asian and Middle Eastern communities in the UK investigating‘Britain’s Crimes of Honour’. The programme looked at some of the tragic cases where women have been threatened, imprisoned in their own homes, driven to attempt suicide and sometimes even killed for ‘honour’.
As part of the documentary, Panorama commissioned a survey by ComRes into attitudes towards honour amongst British Asians. Notwithstanding the fact that the documentary highlighted the often criminal and fatal extremes of observing ‘honour’ amongst some communities in the UK, the documentary failed to use the results arising from the commissioned survey in an objective manner. As Islamophobia Watch puts it,

“the Panorama documentary makers set out by assuming that support for “honour” based violence is rife within British Asian communities but found that the ComRes survey provided little support for this assumption. So the poll findings were not interpreted objectively but rather hyped up to suggest that there is solid evidence of widespread support for such violence.”
For example, the documentary highlighted the fact that of the 500 respondents questioned by ComRes 69% agreed that“families should live according to honour”. This sentiment was greater amongst the 16-24 age group (73%) than the 25-34 age group (64%). It also cited the statistic that only 6% of respondents thought it “right to physically punish a woman because she brings dishonor”, however that this rose to 18% when respondents were given a specific list of situations.
The documentary failed to point out however that when asked, “Do you personally think that there is ever a justification for so called “honour killings”?”, across all Asian communities (apart from ‘other Asian’) at least 94% responded “no”.
The documentary and survey findings were also covered in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail yesterday. Whilst the Express correctly denoted the survey as polling Asian attitudes, the Daily Mail headlined with, ‘More than two thirds of young British Muslims believe ‘honour’ violence is acceptable, survey reveals’. The article began with “Most young British Muslims support violence against women who ‘dishonour’ their families…”

Whilst 70% of Muslim respondents agreed that “families should live according to the concept of honour”, so did 64% of Hindus, 79% of Sikhs and 62% of Christians, and this question did not refer to violence. 94% of Muslims disagreed that “in certain circumstances, it can be right to physically punish a female member of the family if she brings dishonor to her family or community”. 94% of Muslims also answered “no” in response to, “Do you personally think that there is ever a justification for so called “honour killings”?”
The Daily Mail later altered the headline of the article having been made aware of its incompetence in interpreting the survey results accurately. Given that the Daily Mail is among the most popular news websites, such failings potentially have considerable ramifications.
Moreover, with newspapers relying too heavily, if not exclusively, on press releases issued prior to programme broadcasts the ability to contextualise such news stories is lost. For example, the Guardian on Saturday featured a report on the growing problem of domestic violence in the UK. The Guardian cited a study which found that, “There are two domestic killings of women each week on average, accounting for about 40% of all female murders.”
Assessing Asian attitudes towards ‘honour’ and ‘honour-based violence’ in correlation to attitudes and statistics on domestic violence in the UK provides a more holistic picture on the plight of women vulnerable to and threatened by gender based abuse and violence. It enables us to appreciate the wider context in which the ComRes study on Asian attitudes is situated. But that’s hardly in the interests of the Daily Mail now is it? Moreover, it is worth noting that newspapers do not seem as concerned with the issue of domestic violence amongst the wider UK public, as illustrated in the Guardian; perhaps this is because it does not suit their agenda to foment prejudice and hatred against minority communities, especially Muslims.
You can see the results of the ComRes survey here.
The Panorama documentary is available to watch here.

[Guest]

The story wasn't racist actually.

Racist defender to the racists rescue!!!!!! ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Also.....Why is this in general news when it isn't a news story?

Shouldn't it be moved, or better dumped!

what like the majority of your threads which contain nothing but shite

[Ben Reilly]

It was inaccurate, as I've explained several times already. The woman was arrested and charged with espionage. Her husband is the one making the claim that she was arrested for insulting Islam on Facebook; it is not what she was charged with, however.

He obviously knows more then about it

All I had to do was read the first few paragraphs of the article to see that the headline at the dailymail was inaccurate. I invite you to make the same comparison.

[Guest]

Okay lets ask the simple question, was the title misleading?


Yes


Why?

Because the title claimed that the woman was arrested due to her comments from facebook
Was she arrested for that?

No

The husband may well be correct, but the woman was not arrested or charged for such a claim


Hence misleading title


Was it Islam in the title giving an orgasm to some posters?


Yes

[Guest]

Racist defender to the racists rescue!!!!!! ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Also.....Why is this in general news when it isn't a news story?

Shouldn't it be moved, or better dumped!

what like the majority of your threads which contain nothing but shite

My threads are posted in the relevant sections, not as shite as the religious shite that you post, you idiotic invisible man believer!   

[eddie]

Oh come on Eddie, we all know Andy's motives and how he'll twist anything to suit his agenda.   A total idiot would have realised the Mail had twisted the title to suit.   He wanted the title up there to bang on about Muslims again.   We're not daft and we're not stupid and we know exactly what he is up to.   Thankfully, so does Ben.   And it's his forum.

No sassy. I am not always in agreement with Andy, I don't always comment on his threads either.
But Ben changed that thread title because he doesn't like Andy.

It's getting to the pint where I'm finding all you lot to be very fucking ignorant actually.
Since when, on any forum, do we go around changing a thread title that is a newspaper headline????

Free speech?????

What a fucking joke.

That, is my problem!

Time to go soon. This forum full of people wanking each other off over perceived hurts and other people being told what they can and can't say.

[Guest]

Oh come on Eddie, we all know Andy's motives and how he'll twist anything to suit his agenda.   A total idiot would have realised the Mail had twisted the title to suit.   He wanted the title up there to bang on about Muslims again.   We're not daft and we're not stupid and we know exactly what he is up to.   Thankfully, so does Ben.   And it's his forum.

No sassy. I am not always in agreement with Andy, I don't always comment on his threads either.
But Ben changed that thread title because he doesn't like Andy.

It's getting to the pint where I'm finding all you lot to be very fucking ignorant actually.
Since when, on any forum, do we go around changing a thread title that is a newspaper headline????

Free speech?????

What a fucking joke.

That, is my problem!

Time to go soon. This forum full of people wanking each other off over perceived hurts and other people being told what they can and can't say.

Okay lets ask the simple question, was the title misleading?


Yes


Why?

Because the title claimed that the woman was arrested due to her comments from facebook
Was she arrested for that?

No

The husband may well be correct, but the woman was not arrested or charged for such a claim


Hence misleading title


Was it Islam in the title giving an orgasm to some posters?


Yes




Thus Eddie backs misleading headlines

[eddie]

The story wasn't racist actually.

Racist defender to the racists rescue!!!!!! ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Also.....Why is this in general news when it isn't a news story?

Shouldn't it be moved, or better dumped!

Phil. Shut up.
Stir stir stir your drink.

[Guest]

A new question, do newspapers have to change misleading headlines?


Yes


For Eddie to read again:

http://iengage.uk.net/news/panorama-and-daily-mail-misrepresent-survey-on-honour-crimes/


So what the fuck is wrong with a forum ownder changing something to make it more accurate than the headline given by the Mail?

Fuck all


Are some being completely and utterly pedantic over nothing?


Yes

Fuck me how utterly pathetic

[Ben Reilly]

Oh come on Eddie, we all know Andy's motives and how he'll twist anything to suit his agenda.   A total idiot would have realised the Mail had twisted the title to suit.   He wanted the title up there to bang on about Muslims again.   We're not daft and we're not stupid and we know exactly what he is up to.   Thankfully, so does Ben.   And it's his forum.

No sassy. I am not always in agreement with Andy, I don't always comment on his threads either.
But Ben changed that thread title because he doesn't like Andy.

It's getting to the pint where I'm finding all you lot to be very fucking ignorant actually.
Since when, on any forum, do we go around changing a thread title that is a newspaper headline????

Free speech?????

What a fucking joke.

That, is my problem!

Time to go soon. This forum full of people wanking each other off over perceived hurts and other people being told what they can and can't say.

My dislike of Andy had nothing to do with it; my dislike of bad reporting was why I improved the news reporting.

I've been in journalism for 22 years and I won't sit back on a forum I run and let an inaccurate headline slide because somebody thinks I only did it to spite a certain member.

[eddie]

A new question, do newspapers have to change misleading headlines?


Yes


For Eddie to read again:

http://iengage.uk.net/news/panorama-and-daily-mail-misrepresent-survey-on-honour-crimes/


So what the fuck is wrong with a forum ownder changing something to make it more accurate than the headline given by the Mail?

Fuck all


Are some being completely and utterly pedantic over nothing?


Yes

Fuck me how utterly pathetic

Again, if it were your thread title on a forum where you were hassled daily, like you felt on flap, you'd be screaming blue murder.

You're the ones that are pathetic.
You're the ones that HAD to change the title for your own reasons? How odd is that!
Never seen that before on a forum.

[Guest]

Racist defender to the racists rescue!!!!!! ::zomb:: ::zomb:: ::zomb:: 

Also.....Why is this in general news when it isn't a news story?

Shouldn't it be moved, or better dumped!

Phil. Shut up.
Stir stir stir your drink.

You seem to be having more problems with this forum by the day Eddie, why don't you fuck off back to flop if you hate it so much, or you put a sock in it....OK?    

[eddie]

No sassy. I am not always in agreement with Andy, I don't always comment on his threads either.
But Ben changed that thread title because he doesn't like Andy.

It's getting to the pint where I'm finding all you lot to be very fucking ignorant actually.
Since when, on any forum, do we go around changing a thread title that is a newspaper headline????

Free speech?????

What a fucking joke.

That, is my problem!

Time to go soon. This forum full of people wanking each other off over perceived hurts and other people being told what they can and can't say.

My dislike of Andy had nothing to do with it; my dislike of bad reporting was why I improved the news reporting.

I've been in journalism for 22 years and I won't sit back on a forum I run and let an inaccurate headline slide because somebody thinks I only did it to spite a certain member.

Off you go then. Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading, or not to your liking.

[Guest]

Phil. Shut up.
Stir stir stir your drink.

You seem to be having more problems with this forum by the day Eddie, why don't you fuck off back to flop if you hate it so much, or you put a sock in it....OK?    

No Eddie is right about you Catman, you just jump in and make utterly bullshit statements and make matters worse, because you are a shit stirrer


Fact

[Guest]

what like the majority of your threads which contain nothing but shite

My threads are posted in the relevant sections, not as shite as the religious shite that you post, you idiotic invisible man believer!   

I don't start threads about my faith its usually others who do that  to try and make CHRISTIANITY  look bad and some of the thread titles are misleading but remain because this forum supports iiislam and hates CHRISTIANITY

[Guest]

My dislike of Andy had nothing to do with it; my dislike of bad reporting was why I improved the news reporting.

I've been in journalism for 22 years and I won't sit back on a forum I run and let an inaccurate headline slide because somebody thinks I only did it to spite a certain member.

Off you go then. Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading, or not to your liking.

Maybe you can point out some for him, as I am sure he does not read every thread, or do you presume badly he does.
Blimey it may have been prudent to provide some examples instead of claiming something you have not even actually backed up, have you?

[eddie]

Phil. Shut up.
Stir stir stir your drink.

You seem to be having more problems with this forum by the day Eddie, why don't you fuck off back to flop if you hate it so much, or you put a sock in it....OK?    

You're right. I do.
I joined because I wanted to see free speech and debate.

Ben has lots of work to do, thread title changes to be made.
He doesn't want any thread titles to be misleading.

And I will fuck off soon. I hate bullies and lick arses.

[Guest]

My threads are posted in the relevant sections, not as shite as the religious shite that you post, you idiotic invisible man believer!   

I don't start threads about my faith its usually others who do that  to try and make CHRISTIANITY  look bad and some of the thread titles are misleading but remain because this forum supports iiislam and hates CHRISTIANITY

All i see are threads trying to make Islam look bad, and not the other way round.  

[eddie]

Off you go Ben.

Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading.

That's your job.
Then you can go bully Andy some more.

I'm off for a bit.
Can't be doing with such bollocks.

[Guest]

A new question, do newspapers have to change misleading headlines?


Yes


For Eddie to read again:

http://iengage.uk.net/news/panorama-and-daily-mail-misrepresent-survey-on-honour-crimes/


So what the fuck is wrong with a forum ownder changing something to make it more accurate than the headline given by the Mail?

Fuck all


Are some being completely and utterly pedantic over nothing?


Yes

Fuck me how utterly pathetic

Again, if it were your thread title on a forum where you were hassled daily, like you felt on flap, you'd be screaming blue murder.

You're the ones that are pathetic.
You're the ones that HAD to change the title for your own reasons? How odd is that!
Never seen that before on a forum.

No I would not be screaming blue murder actually that is utter bullshit you fucking liar Eddie, I made titles about other posters as a joke of which Dean always changed and never said anything, so stop lying out of your arse when you are the one being exposed for being so pedantically absurd and ignorant.

Fuck me get a life you wally

[Guest]

Off you go Ben.

Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading.

That's your job.
Then you can go bully Andy some more.

I'm off for a bit.
Can't be doing with such bollocks.

Off you go then Eddie back up your claims, all I am seeing is utter bullshit to your claims


Come on, you must have at least one that is not accurate you can use as an example?

Laters moody

[Guest]

Oh and why not drag it over to flap so you can whinge there about it as you always do


Pathetic

[Guest]

A new question, do newspapers have to change misleading headlines?


Yes


For Eddie to read again:

http://iengage.uk.net/news/panorama-and-daily-mail-misrepresent-survey-on-honour-crimes/


So what the fuck is wrong with a forum ownder changing something to make it more accurate than the headline given by the Mail?

Fuck all


Are some being completely and utterly pedantic over nothing?


Yes

Fuck me how utterly pathetic

Again, if it were your thread title on a forum where you were hassled daily, like you felt on flap, you'd be screaming blue murder.

You're the ones that are pathetic.
You're the ones that HAD to change the title for your own reasons? How odd is that!
Never seen that before on a forum.

One final time also, do newspapers change misleading headlines?


Take your time dummy?


I should I say put your dummy back in your mouth

[Guest]

One last point by the way Eddie, Dean has actually done the same on threads, if you do not believe me ask him, thus again making your point redundant to free speech on threads.
In fact many threads have started not with the actual title from the news story and did you bat an eyelid?


NO

[Guest]

No sassy. I am not always in agreement with Andy, I don't always comment on his threads either.
But Ben changed that thread title because he doesn't like Andy.

It's getting to the pint where I'm finding all you lot to be very fucking ignorant actually.
Since when, on any forum, do we go around changing a thread title that is a newspaper headline????

Free speech?????

What a fucking joke.

That, is my problem!

Time to go soon. This forum full of people wanking each other off over perceived hurts and other people being told what they can and can't say.

My dislike of Andy had nothing to do with it; my dislike of bad reporting was why I improved the news reporting.

I've been in journalism for 22 years and I won't sit back on a forum I run and let an inaccurate headline slide because somebody thinks I only did it to spite a certain member.

Well, it's seems you are a better journalist than those on the Daily Mail, and frankly Ben, whatever the reason was, it's your forum.

[Eilzel]

Off you go Ben.

Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading.

That's your job.
Then you can go bully Andy some more.

I'm off for a bit.
Can't be doing with such bollocks.

Eds, Ben has hardly changed loads of thread titles- and he certainly isn't bullying Andy (as if anyone ever could anyway).

It isn't even like any content has been removed, so I don't know where the idea of an attack on free speech has come from?

Don't you think you're over reacting just a bit?   

[Guest]

Off you go Ben.

Put on your reporters hat, lick your pen and go change ALL the titles that seem a little misleading.

That's your job.
Then you can go bully Andy some more.

I'm off for a bit.
Can't be doing with such bollocks.

Eds, Ben has hardly changed loads of thread titles- and he certainly isn't bullying Andy (as if anyone ever could anyway).

It isn't even like any content has been removed, so I don't know where the idea of an attack on free speech has come from?

Don't you think you're over reacting just a bit?   

Exactly and I like Eddie, but she is being an utter arse here, neglecting Dean has done the exact same thing

[Guest]

I hope you come back soon eddie, but I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion Ben is doing something wrong. Sorry.

[Ben Reilly]

what like the majority of your threads which contain nothing but shite

My threads are posted in the relevant sections, not as shite as the religious shite that you post, you idiotic invisible man believer!   

I don't start threads about my faith its usually others who do that  to try and make CHRISTIANITY  look bad and some of the thread titles are misleading but remain because this forum supports iiislam and hates CHRISTIANITY

You've started eight threads and half have been about your faith.

[eddie]

Firstly it isn't my job to go and find the threads titles that Ben doesn't like.
Secondly, no, I'm not overreacting: I have always, always said I like free speech and I'm seeing less and less if that on here.
Thirdly, if Dean changes thread titles then he's an arse too.

As if I ever have a problem telling people that they're arses.

And finally, yes it is bullying actually; absolutely anyone can be bullied so it isn't so far-out to believe that Ben is indeed, bullying Andy.

Oh and one more finally; I've made my point didge. If you think I'm going to keep re-hashing everything on this thread to death to convince you of my point, then I'd just become you......
And much as I still like you, I'd never want that.  

[Guest]

Firstly it isn't my job to go and find the threads titles that Ben doesn't like.
Secondly, no, I'm not overreacting: I have always, always said I like free speech and I'm seeing less and less if that on here.
Thirdly, if Dean changes thread titles then he's an arse too.

As if I ever have a problem telling people that they're arses.

And finally, yes it is bullying actually; absolutely anyone can be bullied so it isn't so far-out to believe that Ben is indeed, bullying Andy.

Oh and one more finally; I've made my point didge. If you think I'm going to keep re-hashing everything on this thread to death to convince you of my point, then I'd just become you......
And much as I still like you, I'd never want that.  

Utter babble


If you claim someone is being unfair then you back this up with other threads proving your case of which you have failed to do, thus you are forming an opinion that has no backing other than your own assumption
Second you have taken Dean to task over similar views over where you think he is being unfair in how he moderates his forum have you not? Thus each owner of their forum will follow what they see best even when we disagree strongly with that view, where I even proved as you well know Dean being unfair in moderating, but in that case I did actually prove it, Here though you have proved nothing but an assumption you fel Andy is being poorly treated over a title, though never seem to question the stories Andy does chose which is odd in itself, being as they all have a similar context, but complain over a title being changed to reflect a more accurate title to the story, I again find that absurd. I again think it is absurd you also ignore the Mail has a terrible habit of printing misleading titles.


So the question then is, do you think it is fair for a national newspaper to print not only misleading headlines but also inaccurate ones, the point I think here you have completely missed, where again even newspapers have had to change their titles because they were so wrong? Now if they have had to do so, what is the deal here? None, unless you have some unfounded claim against Ben, which as seen you cannot even back up

[Ben Reilly]

Firstly it isn't my job to go and find the threads titles that Ben doesn't like.
Secondly, no, I'm not overreacting: I have always, always said I like free speech and I'm seeing less and less if that on here.
Thirdly, if Dean changes thread titles then he's an arse too.

As if I ever have a problem telling people that they're arses.

And finally, yes it is bullying actually; absolutely anyone can be bullied so it isn't so far-out to believe that Ben is indeed, bullying Andy.

Oh and one more finally; I've made my point didge. If you think I'm going to keep re-hashing everything on this thread to death to convince you of my point, then I'd just become you......
And much as I still like you, I'd never want that.  

Sorry, from now on I'll leave inaccuracies in headlines -- that would be a great service for the readers of a news website, after all, and by God, we cannot be seen as picking on BigAndy. That would obviously be far worse than spreading false information.

[eddie]

And I will apologise for swearing to:

SM
sassy
Didge

It's Ben I'm disappointed in.
You lot always agree with him anyway but it's not your forum so I shouldn't get pissed off with you lot really.

[Guest]

Eds, Ben has hardly changed loads of thread titles- and he certainly isn't bullying Andy (as if anyone ever could anyway).

It isn't even like any content has been removed, so I don't know where the idea of an attack on free speech has come from?

Don't you think you're over reacting just a bit?   

Exactly and I like Eddie, but she is being an utter arse here, neglecting Dean has done the exact same thing

Actually he hasn't, he's only ever changed thread titles if they contained abuse, swearwords and such. By the way, I must have missed it, but why did Andy's thread title get changed exactly?

[Guest]

Exactly and I like Eddie, but she is being an utter arse here, neglecting Dean has done the exact same thing

Actually he hasn't, he's only ever changed thread titles if they contained abuse, swearwords and such.  By the way, I must have missed it, but why did Andy's thread title get changed exactly?

So he changed made up thread titles, exactly as Dean has done, big deal.

Again the claim is made on Andy with no evidence again on other threads with misleading titles and let me make this very clear Tess not being changed, of which I see no evidence, hence the claim is utter bull.


Please read the thread Tess and see for yourself

[Sponsored content]