Please note a change to the rules

First topic message reminder :

In light of a few things that have gone on recently, a line has been added to the NewsFix rules that I wanted to make sure to announce. It's very simple and I don't think it should be controversial:

"Posts that include personal details about a particular member in abusive fashion are not allowed, and members who abusively post personal information about others may be subject to administrative action, including a permanent ban, at the administrators' discretion."

This is in keeping with the spirit of our other rules which all basically say the same thing -- what we're trying to encourage and cultivate here is debate, not fighting.

I understand some people enjoy fighting, but there are other sites for that. From the beginning, NF has been about encouraging civil debate, and we haven't given up on that.

Your feedback is, as always, welcome.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wasn't addressing you.

Lol Raggs did you roll out of bed the wrong side?

No. I was asking Ben a question.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
like rape and pedophilia accusations you mean


ps
that's a question to you premises

I wasn't addressing you.

no but i was addressing you and inquiring to the scope of your query
After all, that's how forums work
Perhaps if you did not want others opinion,thoughts ect (this is a opinion site) on the subject a PM to Ben would have been more appropriate and unlikely to start a debate (hello debate site )

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you mean by "personal details" or "personal information"?

Things like information about family members, residency, etc.

Does that include fictitious stories about posters or their family members?

Yes, absolutely. I don't want to see any allegations of criminal or civil misdeeds from this point forward.

That could get the entire site taken down under the right circumstances. Someone accused of being, say, a child molester could get pretty pissed off and we want to show Forumotion that they don't need to handle us for that because we handle that ourselves (as opposed to what happened at IAF).

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wasn't addressing you.

no but i was addressing you and inquiring to the scope of your query
After all, that's how forums work
Perhaps if you did not want others opinion,thoughts ect (this is a opinion site) on the subject a PM to Ben would have been more appropriate and unlikely to start a debate (hello debate site )

Perhaps you could just keep your nose out. That would solve the problem.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does that include fictitious stories about posters or their family members?

Yes, absolutely. I don't want to see any allegations of criminal or civil misdeeds from this point forward.

That could get the entire site taken down under the right circumstances. Someone accused of being, say, a child molester could get pretty pissed off and we want to show Forumotion that they don't need to handle us for that because we handle that ourselves (as opposed to what happened at IAF).

OK. I'd like to request that any further posts about Stooo's private life or the entirely false allegations about his late father are not allowed on here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
no but i was addressing you and inquiring to the scope of your query
After all, that's how forums work
Perhaps if you did not want others opinion,thoughts ect (this is a opinion site) on the subject a PM to Ben would have been more appropriate and unlikely to start a debate (hello debate site )

Perhaps you could just keep your nose out. That would solve the problem.

your very hostile i was just trying to help then i asked you a question

you know that when you ask a question publicly your likely to get others opinion or indeed help to answer that query
It happens all over this forum look at any of the threads directed to ben others have made the same contributions
or are you still trying to fight old battles raggs thus this hostility


i thought we had moved past that

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you could just keep your nose out. That would solve the problem.

your very hostile i was just trying to help then i asked you a question

you know that when you ask a question publicly your likely to get others opinion or indeed help to answer that query
It happens all over this forum look at any of the threads directed to ben others have made the same contributions
or are you still trying to fight old battles raggs thus this hostility


i thought we had moved past that

You didn't have to reply to me at all - I was asking Ben, not you. Your reply was silly anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
your very hostile i was just trying to help then i asked you  a question

you know that when you ask a question publicly your likely to get others opinion or indeed help to answer that query
It happens all over this forum look at any of the threads directed to ben others have made the same contributions
or are you still trying to fight old battles raggs thus this hostility


i thought we had moved past that

You didn't have to reply to me at all - I was asking Ben, not you. Your reply was silly anyway.

i don`t have to do anything i don't want to
But I did want to and that was in the spirt of helpfulness and rather than give you My interpretation of the legal standpoint I supplied a link , i dont know why your pissed at me i have never posted anything about stoo father or made any accusations or any allegations about his family

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't have to reply to me at all - I was asking Ben, not you. Your reply was silly anyway.

i don`t have to do anything i don't want to
But I did want to and that was in the spirt of helpfulness and rather than give you My interpretation of the legal standpoint I supplied a link , i dont know why your pissed at me i have never posted anything about stoo father or made any accusations or any allegations about his family

I wasn't referring to you, although you did pry into his private life big time. I presume that kind of thing won't be allowed either.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Does that include fictitious stories about posters or their family members?

Yes, absolutely. I don't want to see any allegations of criminal or civil misdeeds from this point forward.

That could get the entire site taken down under the right circumstances. Someone accused of being, say, a child molester could get pretty pissed off and we want to show Forumotion that they don't need to handle us for that because we handle that ourselves (as opposed to what happened at IAF).

OK. I'd like to request that any further posts about Stooo's private life or the entirely false allegations about his late father are not allowed on here.

That sort of thing would naturally fall under the new rule. In fact, this rule is here in large part because of the threads that have dragged allegations from people's personal lives into them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK. I'd like to request that any further posts about Stooo's private life or the entirely false allegations about his late father are not allowed on here.

That sort of thing would naturally fall under the new rule. In fact, this rule is here in large part because of the threads that have dragged allegations from people's personal lives into them.

Oh good. Thank you.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
i don`t have to do anything i don't want to
But I did want to and that was in the spirt of helpfulness and rather than give you My interpretation of the legal standpoint I supplied a link , i dont know why your pissed at me i have never posted anything about stoo father or made any accusations or any allegations about his family

I wasn't referring to you, although you did pry into his private life big time. I presume that kind of thing won't be allowed either.

Er.... i think you will find that's not actually private that's why its on a government web site

you should really check that link out raggs first line

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of
public access to information held by public authorities

ie government

Are you sure stoo what you bring all this up again ?
i personally have moved on ....but hey if you want to dance pick a tune

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wasn't referring to you, although you did pry into his private life big time. I presume that kind of thing won't be allowed either.

Er.... i think you will find that's not actually private that's why its on a government web site

you should really check that link out raggs first line

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of
public access to information held by public authorities

ie government

Are you sure stoo what you bring all this up again ?
i personally have moved on ....but hey if you want to dance pick a tune  

Doesn't matter where you got it - it was shameful and spiteful, and it was an attack on him personally.

You're the one who started it. Just keep your nose out - Ben has answered my question, so in future I'll report posts which break the rule.

In which case I presume you and Stoo won't be claiming things about JD?  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:In which case I presume you and Stoo won't be claiming things about JD?  ::D:: 

If JD stays out of my private life, I'll stay out of his. If he makes up stories about me, I'll respond or report him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Er.... i think you will find that's not actually private that's why its on a government web site

you should really check that link out raggs first line

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of
public access to information held by public authorities

ie government

Are you sure stoo what you bring all this up again ?
i personally have moved on ....but hey if you want to dance pick a tune  

Doesn't matter where you got it - it was shameful and spiteful, and it was an attack on him personally.

You're the one who started it. Just keep your nose out - Ben has answered my question, so in future I'll report posts which break the rule.

Actually he started it ...remember
And your the one answering me so requiring me to reply
i would have just left it at the link i gave you with no other comment
You're the one making an issue out of it

Oh, and Doesn't matter where you got it

Well, yes it actually does

Private information and public information are too entirely different things

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Doesn't matter where you got it - it was shameful and spiteful, and it was an attack on him personally.

You're the one who started it. Just keep your nose out - Ben has answered my question, so in future I'll report posts which break the rule.

Actually he started it ...remember
And your the one answering me so requiring me to reply
i would have just left it at the link i gave you with no other comment
You're the one making an issue out of it

He didn't start it. Anyway, you won't be allowed to do it again, so all is well.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
Actually he started it ...remember
And your the one answering me so requiring me to reply
i would have just left it at the link i gave you with no other comment
You're the one making an issue out of it

He didn't start it. Anyway, you won't be allowed to do it again, so all is well.

well i will  have to get ben`s guidance re his site on that as to whether public authority information in the public domain is relevant legal or justified in the public interest.

Also so I might add that i run my own couple of sites and not withstanding bens opinion re hear
i am at liberty to post it where I like  however i have no reason too ...is that about to change that really depends on you doesn`t it

i don't hold a grudge as i say i forgot about it ages ago, but you seem determined to start it up again
I am sure stoo who is obviously well aware i am a member and has posted a few times since I have been back he might have mentioned something if he wanted to drag it all up again, but he chose not to  obviously because he wants it to go away and just be forgotten about I don't blame him
But this little tantrum only serves to shine a light once again
is he aware about your last failed attempt at starting this up again when I thought we had moved past it and do you fight all his battles whether he wants you to or not

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't start it. Anyway, you won't be allowed to do it again, so all is well.

well i will  have to get ben`s guidance re his site on that as to whether public authority information in the public domain is relevant legal or justified in the public interest.

Also so I might add that i run my own couple of sites and not withstanding bens opinion re hear
i am at liberty to post it where I like  however i have no reason too ...is that about to change that really depends on you doesn`t it

i don't hold a grudge as i say i forgot about it ages ago, but you seem determined to start it up again
I am sure stoo who is obviously well aware i am a member and has posted a few times since I have been back he might have mentioned something if he wanted to drag it all up again, but he chose not to  obviously because he wants it to go away and just be forgotten about I don't blame him
But this little tantrum only serves to shine a light once again
is he aware about your last failed attempt at starting this up again when I thought we had moved past it and do you fight all his battles whether he wants you to or not

Perhaps Ben could clarify the matter in reply to your post. If you are allowed to use that information, then others should be allowed to use information which is public in a negative way, including information posted by members themselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.

Why would you harass someone just because I don't like you? That's just immature.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
well i will  have to get ben`s guidance re his site on that as to whether public authority information in the public domain is relevant legal or justified in the public interest.

Also so I might add that i run my own couple of sites and not withstanding bens opinion re hear
i am at liberty to post it where I like  however i have no reason too ...is that about to change that really depends on you doesn`t it

i don't hold a grudge as i say i forgot about it ages ago, but you seem determined to start it up again
I am sure stoo who is obviously well aware i am a member and has posted a few times since I have been back he might have mentioned something if he wanted to drag it all up again, but he chose not to  obviously because he wants it to go away and just be forgotten about I don't blame him
But this little tantrum only serves to shine a light once again
is he aware about your last failed attempt at starting this up again when I thought we had moved past it and do you fight all his battles whether he wants you to or not

Perhaps Ben could clarify the matter in reply to your post. If you are allowed to use that information, then others should be allowed to use information which is public in a negative way, including information posted by members themselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.

Why would you harass someone just because I don't like you? That's just immature.

i completely agree Public information is by its very nature public

I would not and have never posted anything that is not Public information, but that's why I provided the link, I saw where this little trip of yours was going and i all ways do enjoy a good ride

i would also point out and i have said it to everybody hundreds of times do not post personal information on forums

When you do, you have put that into the public domain and can no longer expect confidentiality the clues in the name PUBLIC
Is the information accurate, yes its on a government web site

If someone has deliberately published certain information about themselves on the internet it is difficult to argue that there would be negative consequences of releasing the information under the FOIA


The only argument you can legitamly claim , is was unfair

But I will ask you, was it fair for stoo to allow AB to harass me and do what she was doing in a negative way and then send an abusive email  to me when I asked for him to sort it out
quid pro quo

I also find it ironic that you seem so intent on using the rules of the Bens site to dictate what can and can't be said about people
If Stoo per my request and followed his own forum's rules
As i requested none of that would have happened would it

Korban_Dallas wrote:I also find it ironic that you seem so intent on using the rules of the Bens site to dictate what can and can't be said about people
If Stoo per my request and followed his own forum's rules
As i requested none of that would have happened would it

I merely asked Ben to clarify the rule, and it seems to me that your antics would now be disallowed.

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps Ben could clarify the matter in reply to your post. If you are allowed to use that information, then others should be allowed to use information which is public in a negative way, including information posted by members themselves, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.

Why would you harass someone just because I don't like you? That's just immature.

i completely agree Public information is by its very nature public

I would not and have never posted anything that is not Public information, but that's why I provided the link, I saw where this little trip of yours was going and i all ways do enjoy a good ride

i would also point out and i have said it to everybody hundreds of times do not post personal information on forums

When you do, you have put that into the public domain and can no longer expect confidentiality the clues in the name PUBLIC
Is the information accurate, yes its on a government web site

If someone has deliberately published certain information about themselves on the internet it is difficult to argue that there would be negative consequences of releasing the information under the FOIA


The only argument you can legitamly claim , is was unfair

But I will ask you, was it fair for stoo to allow AB to harass me and do what she was doing in a negative way and then send an abusive email  to me when I asked for him to sort it out
quid pro quo

It's how you use that information which is relevant. You used it for malicious purposes, and that's not right IMO.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
i completely agree Public information is by its very nature public

I would not and have never posted anything that is not Public information, but that's why I provided the link, I saw where this little trip of yours was going and i all ways do enjoy a good ride

i would also point out and i have said it to everybody hundreds of times do not post personal information on forums

When you do, you have put that into the public domain and can no longer expect confidentiality the clues in the name PUBLIC
Is the information accurate, yes its on a government web site

If someone has deliberately published certain information about themselves on the internet it is difficult to argue that there would be negative consequences of releasing the information under the FOIA


The only argument you can legitamly claim , is was unfair

But I will ask you, was it fair for stoo to allow AB to harass me and do what she was doing in a negative way and then send an abusive email  to me when I asked for him to sort it out
quid pro quo

It's how you use that information which is relevant. You used it for malicious purposes, and that's not right IMO.

So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it and i not have to make anything up it was in the public domain

But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  

strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's how you use that information which is relevant. You used it for malicious purposes, and that's not right IMO.

So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it but i did not have to make anything up
But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it but i did not have to make anything up
But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

Yes please do, cos you appear to be the one doing it.

I didn't know that the poster Johnnyboy on IAF was the Dyke Sassy.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it but i did not have to make anything up
But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

it is ovious to see your flailing about wildy to justify your complaint
However, making facts up won't serve you well, I am afraid
i wasn`t called TTS i was/am called korben dallas on hear never anything else (spelling error aside )that is the same avatar i used its the same one she referred to and the name she used continually mentioned along with this site and me
And given that i sent him a email and received abuse in reply you pleads of he didn`t know who was who is just blocks


Try again sweetheart ....but for FS try harder


edit
As i recall she dint even know who Bruce Willis was face like the back of a bus she said .........Bruce Willis ??

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it but i did not have to make anything up
But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

so you decided to jump in ....did you not just admonish me for the very same thing


Honestly Hypocritival comedy gold

well perhaps you should ask him how he feels about you drag it all up again ...

Korban Dallas ? more of a Ruby Rhod,




    

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

so you decided to jump in ....did you not just admonish me for the very same thing


Honestly Hypocritival comedy gold

well perhaps you should ask him how he feels about you drag it all up again ...

It was the stuff about his father I objected to, and that was nothing to do with you. You just had to stick your nose in though and start an argument. You might fool some poor people on here, but I see you for what you are - a nasty little weasel.

Phillipa wrote:Korban Dallas  ? more of a Ruby Rhod,




    

he was great  ::D:: so was lee evens

Phillipa wrote:I didn't know that the poster Johnnyboy on IAF was the Dyke Sassy.

Didn't you, shame. Neither did Dean, which mean I got the screenshots of ALL the pms hacked and so did Forumotion Litigation Department. They are still investigating. Oh, do tell Keith thanks for standing up for me lol

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

Yes please do, cos you appear to be the one doing it.

Don't you have stuff to do - like calling the police?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
so you decided to jump in ....did you not just admonish me for the very same thing


Honestly Hypocritival comedy gold

well perhaps you should ask him how he feels about you drag it all up again ...

It was the stuff about his father I objected to, and that was nothing to do with you. You just had to stick your nose in though and start an argument. You might fool some poor people on here, but I see you for what you are - a nasty little weasel.

you started the discussion, I just posted a link with some helpful information pertanat to your question then you went off on this rant sticking your nose into something that has nothing to do with you
i have never mentioned his family, his mum or dad's brothers, sisters aunts, uncles or made unfounded or untrue allegations

You have been shown up to be an uneducated mostly wrong mouth piece of someone who although online has chosen not to comment
I hope stoo appreciates more light thrown on his life by his good friend Raggs again

If I worried about what a silly girl thought about me then I would be in real trouble
Trust me i am not losing sleep over what you think of me

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Yes please do, cos you appear to be the one doing it.

Don't you have stuff to do - like calling the police?   

No, the Litigation Team are doing a grand job and keeping me informed thanks.

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was the stuff about his father I objected to, and that was nothing to do with you. You just had to stick your nose in though and start an argument. You might fool some poor people on here, but I see you for what you are - a nasty little weasel.

you started the discussion, I just posted a link with some helpful information pertanat to your question then you went off on this rant sticking your nose into something that has nothing to do with you
i have never mentioned his family, his mum or dad's brothers, sisters aunts, uncles or made unfounded or untrue allegations

You have been shown up to be an uneducated mostly wrong mouth piece of someone who although online has chosen not to comment  
I hope stoo appreciates more light thrown on his life by his good friend Raggs  again

If I worried about what a silly girl thought about me then I would be in real trouble
Trust me i am not losing sleep over what you think of me

I asked Ben a question, and you stuck your nose in. I told you I wasn't asking you, and you started stirring. I didn't say you mentioned his family - you just wanted it to be all about you so you could get some more attention. Well you got it, so stop whining.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't you have stuff to do - like calling the police?   

No, the Litigation Team are doing a grand job and keeping me informed thanks.

I laughed at that thread on Forumotion and all those threats you made. Why did you say that three people had their PMs hacked?

:-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

You don't half go on Rags, good job no one gives a toss.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
you started the discussion, I just posted a link with some helpful information pertanat to your question then you went off on this rant sticking your nose into something that has nothing to do with you
i have never mentioned his family, his mum or dad's brothers, sisters aunts, uncles or made unfounded or untrue allegations

You have been shown up to be an uneducated mostly wrong mouth piece of someone who although online has chosen not to comment  
I hope stoo appreciates more light thrown on his life by his good friend Raggs  again

If I worried about what a silly girl thought about me then I would be in real trouble
Trust me i am not losing sleep over what you think of me

I asked Ben a question, and you stuck your nose in. I told you I wasn't asking you, and you started stirring. I didn't say you mentioned his family - you just wanted it to be all about you so you could get some more attention. Well you got it, so stop whining.

i posted a link to the home office legislation regarding your question then you got all hostile and combative and all I have done since is answer your posts to me

you brought up stoo  not me deary

Sassy wrote::-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

You don't half go on Rags, good job no one gives a toss.

Surely they should be informing Ben since it was this forum that was allegedly hacked. Yes? Was your account hacked? It's just that I remember you and HA saying that the PMs were fake, or words to that effect.

Korban_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I asked Ben a question, and you stuck your nose in. I told you I wasn't asking you, and you started stirring. I didn't say you mentioned his family - you just wanted it to be all about you so you could get some more attention. Well you got it, so stop whining.

i posted a link to the home office legislation regarding your question then you got all hostile and combative and all I have done since is answer your posts to me

ypou brought up stoo  not me deary

You're just too boring.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
i posted a link to the home office legislation regarding your question then you got all hostile and combative and all I have done since is answer your posts to me

you brought up stoo  not me deary

You're just too boring.

well i have been called worse by better people so i will take that as a win shall i?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korban_Dallas wrote:
So no answer to my question
Its funny how arguments dissipate when the alleged bad behavior is pointed out  in people own actions in the first place
And there was nothing malicious about it but i did not have to make anything up
But you seem to think it's ok for your "friend" to be spiteful and allowing AB to to harass me  
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

Look Rags, your mate Stooo is an unhinged loon with a history of accusing folk of being 'kiddy fiddlers" ....his party piece, and by you saying Stooo allowing AB to go around saying that KD 'likes young girls' is just not on, it's not the ' back of a bus' KD so much gives a shit about.


Do you realise how that sounds Rags?

And before you start banging on about the post I put up about him in the pub regards to the complainers mother on here ....that was already in the public domain man, I only pasted it's contents from BF...

Go check the member details on BF who originally posted what was in the domain....ages before I even joined my first forum (Sky) ...and the BF, I had never even heard of BF at this time, the members name there was Doyle...who had joined  around 2007/08.


Same with KD, he only posted what was in the public domain.

All this bile from Stooo about ' rape vans" etc is only dragging  this place down and actually to the point where even I can't really be fucking bothered anymore, and I notice your not just picking at Sassy, but KD also....he had done nothing wrong as what he posted was also in the public domain.

I don't want want to keep it going Rags, but if folk are given shit constantly slung at them, then there is only so much they can take...it will most likely come back at ya.


I find you to be quite disruptive , but at least you were beginning to settle in just a little bit, but along comes Stooo to try to wreck the forum, rape vans and all.

I apologise to Ben for C&P that article here, that won't be repeated.


I don't want this forum to turn into another Sleeping Dogs Forum , and I know that's the last thing Sassy and KD want too.

Cheers.


If Stooo and Rags wish to move on without the silly ' rape van' stuff , then I'm willing to, it's really up to them.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

IMO, Stooo didn't know that you were TTS, the person who Andrea talked about. All she said about you was that you looked like the back end of a bus, and even then she was talking about Bruce Willis. What you did was spiteful, malicious, and childish.

This is me saying this, not Stooo, and he has not asked me to say anything. You'd have to ask him what he wants - I can't read his mind.

Now just STFU and stop shit stirring.

Look Rags, your mate Stooo is an unhinged loon with a history of accusing folk of being 'kiddy fiddlers" ....his party piece, and by you saying Stooo allowing AB to go around saying that KD 'likes young girls' is just not on, it's not the ' back of a bus' KD so much gives a shit about.


Do you realise how that sounds Rags?

And before you start banging on about the post I put up about him in the pub regards to the complainers mother on here ....that was already in the public domain man, I only pasted it's contents from BF...

Go check the member details on BF who originally posted what was in the domain....ages before I even joined my first forum (Sky) ...and the BF, I had never even heard of BF at this time, the members name there was Doyle...who had joined  around 2007/08.


Same with KD, he only posted what was in the public domain.

All this bile from Stooo about ' rape vans" etc is only dragging  this place down and actually to the point where even I can't really be fucking bothered anymore, and I notice your not just picking at Sassy, but KD also....he had done nothing wrong as what he posted was also in the public domain.

I don't want want to keep it going Rags, but if folk are given shit constantly slung at them, then there is only so much they can take...it will most likely come back at ya.


I find you to be quite disruptive , but at least you were beginning to settle in just a little bit, but along comes Stooo to try to wreck the forum, rape vans and all.

I apologise to Ben for C&P that article here, that won't be repeated.


I don't want this forum to turn into another Sleeping Dogs Forum , and I know that's the last thing Sassy and KD want too.

Cheers.

Good evening "Costa".

I didn't bother to read all that because it's bound to be mostly crap.

Well another thread that has descended into a silly feud and hope this gets locked like all the others.

Ok folks leave her alone please she has oviously gotten her knickers in a twist
and throwing petrol on it isn`t helpfull to the forum
her beef is with me lets not all pile in

i can take care of my self ....but thanks

Didge wrote:Well another thread that has descended into a silly feud and hope this gets locked like all the others.  

Fine by me. I just wanted Ben to clarify the new rule, and he's done that.

Didge wrote:Well another thread that has descended into a silly feud and hope this gets locked like all the others.  

No feud hear ....well not on my part Didge

Korban_Dallas wrote:
strangley stoo has been logged on a long time, perhaps he would like to comment
Or are you his second? And fight his battles for him?
Or would he rather you just drop it

Keep me out of your shit, if you want to slag Andrea then join BF. Keeping a tab open doesn't mean that I'm following a thread.