Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

2009 : I wonder.....

Threads that have run on UpTheSaddlers that might or might not be worth keeping...
User avatar
Willy Nilly
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:59 pm

King Crimson wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:Want an example of a snide, targetted-at-someone PERSONALLY, post, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread it was placed on?

Could all the mod's who ignored this - and all the WM supporters exlain how this is within the AUP please?

Nothing at all constructive added to a serious and well meant thread, but hi-jacked for a totally unnecessary cheap dig at a respected female poster.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28776

And please don't say that no-one was named in the post, because we all know full well who it was aimed at.


A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.

Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.



Cop-out.

Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?

And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?

Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?

And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?

clawtheolder
Glitterati
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:19 pm

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Fri Jan 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Exile wrote:I haven't a clue who it is, but does it matter? I don't have a clue who cully is either, and I'm not bothered, likewise BB1, and half the rest of the board.

Happy new year one and all. Anyone's welcome to stalk me.


Hope you dont think i`m stalking you i`m only one island away from you at the moment. :wink:

Jockey
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1311
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:21 pm

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:59 pm

clawtheolder wrote:
Exile wrote:I haven't a clue who it is, but does it matter? I don't have a clue who cully is either, and I'm not bothered, likewise BB1, and half the rest of the board.

Happy new year one and all. Anyone's welcome to stalk me.


Hope you dont think i`m stalking you i`m only one island away from you at the moment. :wink:


You could have turned the xmas lights off (the front) when you went away, its attracting all the wrong sorts. I dont mind though :wink:

User avatar
Willy Nilly
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:13 am

Jockey wrote:
clawtheolder wrote:
Exile wrote:I haven't a clue who it is, but does it matter? I don't have a clue who cully is either, and I'm not bothered, likewise BB1, and half the rest of the board.

Happy new year one and all. Anyone's welcome to stalk me.


Hope you dont think i`m stalking you i`m only one island away from you at the moment. :wink:


You could have turned the xmas lights off (the front) when you went away, its attracting all the wrong sorts. I dont mind though :wink:


:mrgreen:

User avatar
King Crimson
Poet Laureate
 
Posts: 8345
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: In the Wake of Poseidon

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:53 am

Willy Nilly wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.

Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.



Cop-out.

Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?


Admin (Steve Roy) made his position on those threads and references very, very clear. A line was drawn. Posts were deleted. In my view, we're all better off if that particular 'chapter' of UTS remains closed.

Willy Nilly wrote:And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?

If whether the post is constructive or not is irrelevant, why mention it? 'Stalkeresque jibes at another member' is not mentioned within the AUP.

Willy Nilly wrote:Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?

There is no 'grey area'. I asked you to tell me precisely how that post breaches the AUP and you haven't. Any post is naturally seen as 'OK' unless it is in breach. Hence, whether you found teh post funny, offensive, relevant or petty, if it doesn't fall foul of the AUP, it's OK. There's plenty of stuff we all would rather not see or read, but posters rightly accuse mods/admin of censorship on grounds of personal prejudice if we don't adhere to the criteria in the owner's AUP. I'll remind you of the 'report' function if you think there is a genuine point that requires attention.

Willy Nilly wrote:And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?

I'm a mod, not an administrator. I make the point that technically most posters on here could run rings around me when it comes to multiple IPs, cloaking software etc. So, I confine myself to editing and deleting posts, moving, merging and locking threads etc. I spend most time modding by tidying up poorly nested quotes etc. That's where my expertise begins and ends, which is fine for being a mod. Nothing personal taken.

I have tried to answer each point honestly, WN. I hope this helps. I have no idea who WM is either. But I'm sure he's having a good laugh at all this.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:12 am

KC's made all the points, I'll just add that this is not a pre-sanitised politcally-correct man-love fest, it's a football messageboard, but for all ages, so it's sanitised after the fact by the mods, man-love isn't allowed, and it's a football messageboard. Which may be politically incorrect.

User avatar
Claire Raynor
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: helping the demented from beyond the grave

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:30 am

Willy Nilly wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:Want an example of a snide, targetted-at-someone PERSONALLY, post, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread it was placed on?

Could all the mod's who ignored this - and all the WM supporters exlain how this is within the AUP please?

Nothing at all constructive added to a serious and well meant thread, but hi-jacked for a totally unnecessary cheap dig at a respected female poster.

http://www.upthesaddlers.com/bb/viewtop ... 16&t=28776

And please don't say that no-one was named in the post, because we all know full well who it was aimed at.


A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.

Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.



Cop-out.

Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?

And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?

Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?

And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?


Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx

User avatar
cyclothymic
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Nothing is True [:~:] Everything is Permitted

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:47 am

Exile wrote:KC's made all the points, I'll just add that this is not a pre-sanitised politcally-correct man-love fest, it's a football messageboard, but for all ages, so it's sanitised after the fact by the mods, man-love isn't allowed, and it's a football messageboard. Which may be politically incorrect.


What do you mean man-love is not allowed!!! Who made you Sex Boss :mrgreen:

I think I'll just add that man-love is allowed ... but explicit reference to physical practices that may or may not take place between a man and a man, a man and a woman, a woman or a woman ... basically anything involving genitals and any other 'object' ... is not allowed.

(ps - change your username to Sex Boss ... please :lol: :lol: :lol: )

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:03 am

cyclothymic wrote:
Exile wrote:KC's made all the points, I'll just add that this is not a pre-sanitised politcally-correct man-love fest, it's a football messageboard, but for all ages, so it's sanitised after the fact by the mods, man-love isn't allowed, and it's a football messageboard. Which may be politically incorrect.


What do you mean man-love is not allowed!!! Who made you Sex Boss :mrgreen:

I think I'll just add that man-love is allowed ... but explicit reference to physical practices that may or may not take place between a man and a man, a man and a woman, a woman or a woman ... basically anything involving genitals and any other 'object' ... is not allowed.

(ps - change your username to Sex Boss ... please :lol: :lol: :lol: )


Eurgh. No thanks. I'd lose what little respect I have.

So.. everyone - carry on posting, and if you get modded, that's where the limits are. :wink:

User avatar
cyclothymic
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Nothing is True [:~:] Everything is Permitted

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:06 am

Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:
Exile wrote:KC's made all the points, I'll just add that this is not a pre-sanitised politcally-correct man-love fest, it's a football messageboard, but for all ages, so it's sanitised after the fact by the mods, man-love isn't allowed, and it's a football messageboard. Which may be politically incorrect.


What do you mean man-love is not allowed!!! Who made you Sex Boss :mrgreen:

I think I'll just add that man-love is allowed ... but explicit reference to physical practices that may or may not take place between a man and a man, a man and a woman, a woman or a woman ... basically anything involving genitals and any other 'object' ... is not allowed.

(ps - change your username to Sex Boss ... please :lol: :lol: :lol: )


Eurgh. No thanks. I'd lose what little respect I have.

So.. everyone - carry on posting, and if you get modded, that's where the limits are. :wink:


OK Exile... thanks for clarifying :mrgreen:

[modded - content]

User avatar
SheffieldSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6772
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:51 pm

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:33 pm

Claire Raynor wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:Want an example of a snide, targetted-at-someone PERSONALLY, post, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread it was placed on?

Could all the mod's who ignored this - and all the WM supporters exlain how this is within the AUP please?

Nothing at all constructive added to a serious and well meant thread, but hi-jacked for a totally unnecessary cheap dig at a respected female poster.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28776

And please don't say that no-one was named in the post, because we all know full well who it was aimed at.


A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.

Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.



Cop-out.

Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?

And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?

Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?

And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?


Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


How does f*** off sound Claire?

User avatar
cyclothymic
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Nothing is True [:~:] Everything is Permitted

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:31 pm

cyclothymic wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:
Exile wrote:KC's made all the points, I'll just add that this is not a pre-sanitised politcally-correct man-love fest, it's a football messageboard, but for all ages, so it's sanitised after the fact by the mods, man-love isn't allowed, and it's a football messageboard. Which may be politically incorrect.


What do you mean man-love is not allowed!!! Who made you Sex Boss :mrgreen:

I think I'll just add that man-love is allowed ... but explicit reference to physical practices that may or may not take place between a man and a man, a man and a woman, a woman or a woman ... basically anything involving genitals and any other 'object' ... is not allowed.

(ps - change your username to Sex Boss ... please :lol: :lol: :lol: )


Eurgh. No thanks. I'd lose what little respect I have.

So.. everyone - carry on posting, and if you get modded, that's where the limits are. :wink:


OK Exile... thanks for clarifying :mrgreen:

[modded - as mod does not like his new name]


See above :P

Cully
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4310
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:55 pm
Location: Rugeley.........pronounced RUDGELEE apparently

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:22 pm

Claire Raynor wrote:Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


Funny that the two posters at the centre of the most controversy on the board have now both chosen to post on this thread.

I did wonder when or if you would post again and it would appear that you have chosen the Wendy Mumford option. I'm sure you imagine that most people don't know your other alter egos but I do, don't you ever learn? Why persist with posts like that?

Can I suggest that you take my honest and what I thought was helpful advice offered to you via a moderator many years ago when I first became aware of the nature of your 'personality'. It is a pity that you appear to ignore the truth of your dilemma in favour of continuing with your fantasy. A number of members of this board have expressed genuine concern for your mental and physical health, please do not let them down.

Finally, I'm sorry that I have to make public my thoughts but I do not trust the PM route and I prefer members to read my open and honest opinion rather than hide behind a flurry of PMs from a collection of one persons alter egos and admin/moderators input.

For the benefit of anyone reading this can I apologise for the total lack of flippant comments and usual rather rubbish attempts at humour.

User avatar
SheffieldSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6772
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:51 pm

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:23 pm

Cully wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


Funny that the two posters at the centre of the most controversy on the board have now both chosen to post on this thread.

I did wonder when or if you would post again and it would appear that you have chosen the Wendy Mumford option. I'm sure you imagine that most people don't know your other alter egos but I do, don't you ever learn? Why persist with posts like that?

Can I suggest that you take my honest and what I thought was helpful advice offered to you via a moderator many years ago when I first became aware of the nature of your 'personality'. It is a pity that you appear to ignore the truth of your dilemma in favour of continuing with your fantasy. A number of members of this board have expressed genuine concern for your mental and physical health, please do not let them down.

Finally, I'm sorry that I have to make public my thoughts but I do not trust the PM route and I prefer members to read my open and honest opinion rather than hide behind a flurry of PMs from a collection of one persons alter egos and admin/moderators input.

For the benefit of anyone reading this can I apologise for the total lack of flippant comments and usual rather rubbish attempts at humour.


Well said Cully!
You have my full backing in whatever you consider the best way forward.

User avatar
cyclothymic
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:29 pm
Location: Nothing is True [:~:] Everything is Permitted

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:32 pm

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

User avatar
big baz 1
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:32 pm
Location: Still In My Garage

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:12 pm

I agree with willy nilly





Its a good job it can fly
Last edited by big baz 1 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Willy Nilly
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:02 pm

Cully wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


Funny that the two posters at the centre of the most controversy on the board have now both chosen to post on this thread.

I did wonder when or if you would post again and it would appear that you have chosen the Wendy Mumford option. I'm sure you imagine that most people don't know your other alter egos but I do, don't you ever learn? Why persist with posts like that?

Can I suggest that you take my honest and what I thought was helpful advice offered to you via a moderator many years ago when I first became aware of the nature of your 'personality'. It is a pity that you appear to ignore the truth of your dilemma in favour of continuing with your fantasy. A number of members of this board have expressed genuine concern for your mental and physical health, please do not let them down.

Finally, I'm sorry that I have to make public my thoughts but I do not trust the PM route and I prefer members to read my open and honest opinion rather than hide behind a flurry of PMs from a collection of one persons alter egos and admin/moderators input.

For the benefit of anyone reading this can I apologise for the total lack of flippant comments and usual rather rubbish attempts at humour.


Yes, I recognise the style, too.

Sad, very sad.

User avatar
tape66
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Solid steel visor riveted across his eyes, Iron staples close his jaws so no one hears his cries.

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:04 pm

Willy Nilly wrote:
Cully wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


Funny that the two posters at the centre of the most controversy on the board have now both chosen to post on this thread.

I did wonder when or if you would post again and it would appear that you have chosen the Wendy Mumford option. I'm sure you imagine that most people don't know your other alter egos but I do, don't you ever learn? Why persist with posts like that?

Can I suggest that you take my honest and what I thought was helpful advice offered to you via a moderator many years ago when I first became aware of the nature of your 'personality'. It is a pity that you appear to ignore the truth of your dilemma in favour of continuing with your fantasy. A number of members of this board have expressed genuine concern for your mental and physical health, please do not let them down.

Finally, I'm sorry that I have to make public my thoughts but I do not trust the PM route and I prefer members to read my open and honest opinion rather than hide behind a flurry of PMs from a collection of one persons alter egos and admin/moderators input.

For the benefit of anyone reading this can I apologise for the total lack of flippant comments and usual rather rubbish attempts at humour.


Yes, I recognise the style, too.

Sad, very sad.


I think most people do.

User avatar
Willy Nilly
UTS Regular
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:20 pm

Claire Raynor wrote:

Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


Firstly I have no unresolved issues at all, unlike yourself, maybe?

And I have NEVER asked the mod's to allow any posts against any other female posters at all, including yourself or any other alter ego you may have. Indeed, an administrator on here could (if he wishes) confirm to you privately, or publicly on here, that I asked him to close down the temporary message board, for the very reason that it was being used solely for personal abuse against several posters including myself and my cousin (neither of us female - or respected, for that matter)

The board was eventually closed down.....can't quite remember why now, though. Maybe you could find out for me?

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:26 am

cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.

Said nameless poster hardly posts anymore, after every post they made got jumped on and put down by certain other posters on here, almost , one might say, in an act of stalking.

User avatar
King Crimson
Poet Laureate
 
Posts: 8345
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: In the Wake of Poseidon

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:03 am

Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:26 am

SheffieldSaddler wrote:
Claire Raynor wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Willy Nilly wrote:Want an example of a snide, targetted-at-someone PERSONALLY, post, that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread it was placed on?

Could all the mod's who ignored this - and all the WM supporters exlain how this is within the AUP please?

Nothing at all constructive added to a serious and well meant thread, but hi-jacked for a totally unnecessary cheap dig at a respected female poster.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28776

And please don't say that no-one was named in the post, because we all know full well who it was aimed at.


A little list from me:
1) There is an assumption that unless a post is outside the AUP, it is within it.
2) PRECISELY please, how is that post a breach of the AUP?
3) If mods/admin started to moderate posts on the basis of them not adding to constructive discussion, we may have our hands full and rightly be accused of qualititive censorship.
4) I have no idea of even how to re-size a big picture on here, let alone ban someone with multiple IPs etc. I'll claim the 'clueless' defence cited by Cully above please.

Oh, and 5) There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. Talk about giving WM the 'oxygen of publicity'. Well done, guys.



Cop-out.

Posts have been removed on here for mentioning a 'bot' thing that can be 'googled'. What's the difference between that and a veiled reference to another female poster?

And I never suggested that a non-constructive post be removed for being non-constructive, I suggested that it should be removed because, apart from being non-constructive, it was obviously used as a vehicle for yet another 'stalkeresque' jibe at another member. Do you not see that?

Also, I didn't realise that there was grey area between being within and outside of, the AUP.
Surely, either it is, or it isn't :?

And, nothing personal, K C, but if you admit to being 'clueless' , why an administrator?


Hello sweetie, and I hope I can call you sweetie, darling. I sense you have some unresolved issues in this respect, darling, as you appear to be a bit confused. On the one hand, sweetie, you're asking for the dear little moderators on this site to censor everything that doesn't suit you, or what you think are veiled references to other well-respected female posters who might be friends with you, but on the other hand you're asking the mods to allow posts that are veiled references aimed at other well-respected female posters who aren't friends with you.

Now, sweetie, much as I want to see your point of view, darling, how can you have it both ways?

Having said this, my dearest little child, I'd love to give you my IP, or the mods, or admin, but don't feel as if that would be conducive to a future relationship, sweetie. Is that OK? I hope so, dearest, as that's as good as it gets. God bless privacy, even on the internet.

Hope you resolve your problems, sweetie darling.

Mwah! xxxxx


How does f*** off sound Claire?



Sheff, the voice of reason :lol:
Do agree though mate

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:33 am

King Crimson wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.



Simple solution KC, name and shame the said poster ! Not hard really is it !

User avatar
King Crimson
Poet Laureate
 
Posts: 8345
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: In the Wake of Poseidon

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:45 am

pleck_saddler wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.



Simple solution KC, name and shame the said poster ! Not hard really is it !


Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:50 am

King Crimson wrote:
pleck_saddler wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.



Simple solution KC, name and shame the said poster ! Not hard really is it !


Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).



Would be gutted if my mom had called me pleck_saddler but point taken .
Why not ban the ISP ?
That is possible, as i quite know :shock:

User avatar
King Crimson
Poet Laureate
 
Posts: 8345
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: In the Wake of Poseidon

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:59 am

pleck_saddler wrote:
King Crimson wrote:Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).



Would be gutted if my mom had called me pleck_saddler but point taken .
Why not ban the ISP ?
That is possible, as i quite know :shock:


Users can be banned in several ways - including by IP (but this can be got round by people who know how (not me), and can result in 'innocent' users being banned as 'collateral damage' - AOL users are susceptible to this in particular from my limited understanding).

For my own part, I think if people focus on the content of posts rather than the author of them, they are much more likely to treat people in an even-handed way. 'Claire' was making a point - whether you agree with 'her' or not - and rather than focusing on the validity or otherwise, we begin a new scene from 'the hunchback of Notre Dame' as the baying hordes, after 'recognising the style', grab their flaming torches and set off in pursuit of a monster.

More's the point, what has Claire done that requires a ban?

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:08 am

King Crimson wrote:
pleck_saddler wrote:
King Crimson wrote:Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).



Would be gutted if my mom had called me pleck_saddler but point taken .
Why not ban the ISP ?
That is possible, as i quite know :shock:


Users can be banned in several ways - including by IP (but this can be got round by people who know how (not me), and can result in 'innocent' users being banned as 'collateral damage' - AOL users are susceptible to this in particular from my limited understanding).

For my own part, I think if people focus on the content of posts rather than the author of them, they are much more likely to treat people in an even-handed way. 'Claire' was making a point - whether you agree with 'her' or not - and rather than focusing on the validity or otherwise, we begin a new scene from 'the hunchback of Notre Dame' as the baying hordes, after 'recognising the style', grab their flaming torches and set off in pursuit of a monster.



You and me neither. Love yow !

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:20 am

Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.

Said nameless poster hardly posts anymore, after every post they made got jumped on and put down by certain other posters on here, almost , one might say, in an act of stalking.


How do you know who they think it is? I think I know who it is. Who do you think I think who it is?

User avatar
Whitti Steve
Past UTS Benefactor
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Here

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:21 am

King Crimson wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.


Have only just noticed this thread. I can see both sides of this argument/discussion. Yes, as others have said the user known as Wendy (Fred, etc. etc.) can be very funny at times (IMO), he/she/it also does go too far on occassions. There are a couple of things that could be done.
A) we ban the IP address (again). We have done this in the past, and he gets around it and returns - so not much point.
B) there is a button on your control panel to put people on your "Foes" list. This means you get to see none of his posts.
C) generally, if you ignore him he stops.

Personally, I find the stuff he does most of the time amusing (sorry, I just tend not to take it seriously anymore, life is too short). I can see why others dont - therefore use the Foes button.

For the record, and my IT on here is about as limited as KC's. Whilst no-one has said directly who they think "Claire" is, it sounds like you are very much barking up the wrong tree, and again, surely you can read the humour into the situation????

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: 2009 : I wonder.....

Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:38 am

Whitti Steve wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Exile wrote:
cyclothymic wrote:For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?


Without naming the name, it's not who cully, willy nilly or tape think it is. I don't expect they'll take my word for it, but it isn't.


I'll vouch for that. Different IPs completely (my limited IT ability at least allows me to see that). Still, who cares about details such as internet providers, system configuration etc. when you can 'recognise the style', eh?

Good to see that the quality of evidence presented by the persecution is as watertight as ever.


Have only just noticed this thread. I can see both sides of this argument/discussion. Yes, as others have said the user known as Wendy (Fred, etc. etc.) can be very funny at times (IMO), he/she/it also does go too far on occassions. There are a couple of things that could be done.
A) we ban the IP address (again). We have done this in the past, and he gets around it and returns - so not much point.
B) there is a button on your control panel to put people on your "Foes" list. This means you get to see none of his posts.
C) generally, if you ignore him he stops.

Personally, I find the stuff he does most of the time amusing (sorry, I just tend not to take it seriously anymore, life is too short). I can see why others dont - therefore use the Foes button.

For the record, and my IT on here is about as limited as KC's. Whilst no-one has said directly who they think "Claire" is, it sounds like you are very much barking up the wrong tree, and again, surely you can read the humour into the situation????



Ok i will be the first................ welcome back Wendy Davies aka Fred Mumford, Wendy Mumford, Claire Raynor. Ant more you want to add ?

PreviousNext
Return to UTS Classics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests