2009 : I wonder.....

[Willy Nilly]

It's just a shame that one of our more respected and better posters (a parent himself) continues to cover up for him when he could easily "out" him.

I think it's even more of a shame that several mod's know who it is and conveniently turn a blind eye.

AUP applies as and when it suits IMHO.

Happy New Year all.

[Exile]

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.

[Tyldesley_saddler]

I wonder whether you will post anything of any substance in 2009.

Absolutely Manchester.
Wendy is one of biggest morons on here along with pleck_saddler.

Oi sheff what have i done now ? You bell end

[Cheesebag]

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.

I'm behind you xxx

[Cheesebag]

It's just a shame that one of our more respected and better posters (a parent himself) continues to cover up for him when he could easily "out" him.

Thought you were on about me for a minute until I read the "More respected" bit :D

I'm only gonna say one thing, Poo in real life is a really nice funny person who is excellent at his job of winding people up, some people just take the bite too easily. And I'm not making excuses for him, Yes he sometimes takes things too far which i'm not condoning but mostly his posts make me and a lot of others smile. (reminds me of Wodensborough High School humour circa 1988)

[cyclothymic]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Magic Man Fan]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

[SaigonSaddler]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

[cyclothymic]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.

There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.

That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.

[SaigonSaddler]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.

There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.

That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.

But it is very different.

This is very different to the kind of fun that other normal posters have that lubricate postings. Then we have the spirited debaters who cause each other temporary discomfort over an idea or the tone of their expression. Occasionally two individuals will fall out and have a running feud for a while. That's different too. Both give and take, call each other a few names and eventually get over it.

If someone calls me a name (heaven forbid) then I know it's a joke because I have met them or formed some kind of messageboard relationship. I've never met Manchester for example but we have a laugh. When someone attacks a poster in the way the subject has done in the past then it is very different and somewhat sinister, especially when done repeatedly and without regard to the distress caused.

A sinister Person X is not OK just because person Y isn't perfect. That's like saying Mugabe is OK because Mandela ignored the odd red light.

[SheffieldSaddler]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.

There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.

That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.

Well I would suggest that a certain member make him/her self known instead of hiding behind a name!
Thats the difference you see, Wendy thinks they are clever, protected by the internet.
They are nothing but low lives.
And I personally think the mods have a lot to answer for, for allowing this to continue.
Seems strange they clamp down on swearing and then allow Wendy to continue to post.

[Cully]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

Here's another list for you Mystic Meg, I have to say that I'm suprised that you:-

a] Haven't bothered to read my list.
b] Have read it and couldn't work out what the words mean.
c] You are an apologist for the board pervert.
d] Have read it and remembered something different about someone else and decided to include this as a fantasy statement in order to appear 'with the debate' or as is more likely
e] You admit you are completely clueless like Exile has done honestly in his post.

Next time you try to introduce one of your 'message board myths' I would suggest you back it up with hard facts, you often have a habit of posting so much rubbish it is impossible for us to pin the truth on your backside before you disappear up it.

[SheffieldSaddler]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

Here's another list for you Mystic Meg, I have to say that I'm suprised that you:-

a] Haven't bothered to read my list.
b] Have read it and couldn't work out what the words mean.
c] You are an apologist for the board pervert.
d] Have read it and remembered something different about someone else and decided to include this as a fantasy statement in order to appear 'with the debate' or as is more likely
e] You admit you are completely clueless like Exile has done honestly in his post.

Next time you try to introduce one of your 'message board myths' I would suggest you back it up with hard facts, you often have a habit of posting so much rubbish it is impossible for us to pin the truth on your backside before you disappear up it.

Must admit, I think Cully is making a lot of sense on this thread.
Keep it up Cully.
We all know its one rule for one and one for another.
And Wendy hides well!

[SaigonSaddler]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

Here's another list for you Mystic Meg, I have to say that I'm suprised that you:-

a] Haven't bothered to read my list.
b] Have read it and couldn't work out what the words mean.
c] You are an apologist for the board pervert.
d] Have read it and remembered something different about someone else and decided to include this as a fantasy statement in order to appear 'with the debate' or as is more likely
e] You admit you are completely clueless like Exile has done honestly in his post.

Next time you try to introduce one of your 'message board myths' I would suggest you back it up with hard facts, you often have a habit of posting so much rubbish it is impossible for us to pin the truth on your backside before you disappear up it.

Must admit, I think Cully is making a lot of sense on this thread.
Keep it up Cully.
We all know its one rule for one and one for another.
And Wendy hides well!

Me, Cully and Sheff in agreement. On the same thread! Is this a first? :D

[SheffieldSaddler]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

Here's another list for you Mystic Meg, I have to say that I'm suprised that you:-

a] Haven't bothered to read my list.
b] Have read it and couldn't work out what the words mean.
c] You are an apologist for the board pervert.
d] Have read it and remembered something different about someone else and decided to include this as a fantasy statement in order to appear 'with the debate' or as is more likely
e] You admit you are completely clueless like Exile has done honestly in his post.

Next time you try to introduce one of your 'message board myths' I would suggest you back it up with hard facts, you often have a habit of posting so much rubbish it is impossible for us to pin the truth on your backside before you disappear up it.

Must admit, I think Cully is making a lot of sense on this thread.
Keep it up Cully.
We all know its one rule for one and one for another.
And Wendy hides well!

Me, Cully and Sheff in agreement. On the same thread! Is this a first? :D

I think so!
I think us 3 should get Wendy banned!
NOW!

[cyclothymic]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.

There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.

That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.

But it is very different.

This is very different to the kind of fun that other normal posters have that lubricate postings. Then we have the spirited debaters who cause each other temporary discomfort over an idea or the tone of their expression. Occasionally two individuals will fall out and have a running feud for a while. That's different too. Both give and take, call each other a few names and eventually get over it.

If someone calls me a name (heaven forbid) then I know it's a joke because I have met them or formed some kind of messageboard relationship. I've never met Manchester for example but we have a laugh. When someone attacks a poster in the way the subject has done in the past then it is very different and somewhat sinister, especially when done repeatedly and without regard to the distress caused.

A sinister Person X is not OK just because person Y isn't perfect. That's like saying Mugabe is OK because Mandela ignored the odd red light.

I think I need to clarify as you are reading my (admittedly poorly worded) post in the opposite way to the way I intended.

To use your analogy - Mugabe is very bad but that does not mean the rest of the world are perfectly behaved.

I have witnessed a number of posters receive insult after insult whenever they post - to the point where they stop posting. What tends to happen is one or two posters start this then everone jumps in in a cyber-pile-on.

In a few cases the poster stays (well done to Diddy P for putting up with shed-loads of abuse and actually turning it round to laugh at those abusing him) but in a number of cases people have just left UTS.

So ... I was not using other peoples bad behaviour to condone WendyPooPooCakeShoeMumford ... far from it. I was suggesting that the kind of behaviour he is being accused of is not isolated to him.

I would quote something about he without sin casting the first stone but that would open a whole new can of allegorical worms :wink:

(I wonder if Richard Dawkins had a nice Christmas :D )

[Manchester Saddler]

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part

Including Cully.

Here's another list for you Mystic Meg, I have to say that I'm suprised that you:-

a] Haven't bothered to read my list.
b] Have read it and couldn't work out what the words mean.
c] You are an apologist for the board pervert.
d] Have read it and remembered something different about someone else and decided to include this as a fantasy statement in order to appear 'with the debate' or as is more likely
e] You admit you are completely clueless like Exile has done honestly in his post.

Next time you try to introduce one of your 'message board myths' I would suggest you back it up with hard facts, you often have a habit of posting so much rubbish it is impossible for us to pin the truth on your backside before you disappear up it.

Must admit, I think Cully is making a lot of sense on this thread.
Keep it up Cully.
We all know its one rule for one and one for another.
And Wendy hides well!

Me, Cully and Sheff in agreement. On the same thread! Is this a first? :D

Count me in too. I disagree with Sheff about a lot of stuff; I disagree with Cully even more. But on the subject of the resident board pervert I am in 100% agreement with both.

[SaigonSaddler]

I wonder if Richard Dawkins had a nice Christmas

Richard Dawkins is genetically predisposed to have a mildly enjoyable Winterval.

:D

[SheffieldSaddler]

I am surprised that Pedagogue suggests 'outing' this poster - within this thread and in many previous threads there have been suggestions of violence towards this poster - surely 'outing' them under such circumstances would be aiding and abetting. Can't 2009 be a friendlier year on UTS?

For what it is worth Cully's list above can be applied to a number of posters on UTS, either in its entirety or in part. Try it – it is an interesting exercise.

Wendy is a pantomime villain - pure and simple.

All together now:

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I largely agree.

However posts that are racist, serve as an anonimous vehicle for persecution of individual posters, or repeatedly attack individual posters when it's obvious that it's unwelcome, and unsolicited PMs are not welcome. These people are my friends and I don't like real people to be treated in that way.

The poster in question has performed all the above and hidden behind the flimsy attribute that some readers find some of his posts amusing. While this has improved of late, it still goes well beyond the remit of a fairly cheeky pantomine villian.

All true - and I have PMed said poster when I think something is out-of-order.

There has been quite a bit of persecution of individual posters recently - some of them do not post any more because of this. The persecution has often been by many members of the board ganging up together (I think I used the word bullying in the past only to be told I was being over-sensitive). MumfordPooPooWendyClaypoleShoeCake is far from alone in this kind of behaviour.

That said - tounge-in-cheek racism is still racism in the same way that tounge-in-cheek sexism is still sexism and tounge-in-cheek homophobia is still homophobia.

But it is very different.

This is very different to the kind of fun that other normal posters have that lubricate postings. Then we have the spirited debaters who cause each other temporary discomfort over an idea or the tone of their expression. Occasionally two individuals will fall out and have a running feud for a while. That's different too. Both give and take, call each other a few names and eventually get over it.

If someone calls me a name (heaven forbid) then I know it's a joke because I have met them or formed some kind of messageboard relationship. I've never met Manchester for example but we have a laugh. When someone attacks a poster in the way the subject has done in the past then it is very different and somewhat sinister, especially when done repeatedly and without regard to the distress caused.

A sinister Person X is not OK just because person Y isn't perfect. That's like saying Mugabe is OK because Mandela ignored the odd red light.

I think I need to clarify as you are reading my (admittedly poorly worded) post in the opposite way to the way I intended.

To use your analogy - Mugabe is very bad but that does not mean the rest of the world are perfectly behaved.

I have witnessed a number of posters receive insult after insult whenever they post - to the point where they stop posting. What tends to happen is one or two posters start this then everone jumps in in a cyber-pile-on.

In a few cases the poster stays (well done to Diddy P for putting up with shed-loads of abuse and actually turning it round to laugh at those abusing him) but in a number of cases people have just left UTS.

So ... I was not using other peoples bad behaviour to condone WendyPooPooCakeShoeMumford ... far from it. I was suggesting that the kind of behaviour he is being accused of is not isolated to him.

I would quote something about he without sin casting the first stone but that would open a whole new can of allegorical worms :wink:

(I wonder if Richard Dawkins had a nice Christmas :D )

What a complete cop out.
The behaviour IS isolated to him!
Cant you actually see that.

[Willy Nilly]

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.

[big baz 1]

I totally agree with my freind willy nilly. I would love to track mumford down and give her/him ( i cant decide) a showstopping big baz beating.

[Jockey]

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.

Ill echo those comments.
Ill also add Wendy tried to come to the Xmas party at Mayflower but was refused entry by Big Baz the bouncer so shes indeed part of the "clique" and therefore deserves to be banned or maybe issued with a letter or maybe advised by the police not to come onto the board :mrgreen:

[big baz 1]

I echo the comments of the above poster ( i havent a got a clue who he is) with regards to me refusing mumford entry to the uts xmas meal. 8)

[SheffieldSaddler]

So it looks like the vast majority dont like Wendy then........

[cyclothymic]

Who needs Celebrity Big Brother when we have this thread eh?

"UTS - This is Big Brother. Please do not swear. The public has voted and Mumford is the first person to be evicted from the Big Brother house. You have 30 minutes to pack your bags"

I know, I know - I am not taking the thread seriously! Sorry for that!

I like everybody on UTS and because of that Cully repeatedly accuses me of being a fense-sitter with splinters in my bottom - but I do like everybody on UTS ... you are a disfunctional bunch of lovelies!

[cyclothymic]

PS - Sheff ... it is not a good idea for you to suggest that majority vote gets a person banned. I would vote for you to stay but I would be not be a winner :(

And you know it and love it :wink:

[SheffieldSaddler]

PS - Sheff ... it is not a good idea for you to suggest that majority vote gets a person banned. I would vote for you to stay but I would be not be a winner :(

And you know it and love it :wink:

But at least people on here can put an ugly mug to my name!
Not like a certain Wendy!!!!
The UTS pervert who love hiding!

[cyclothymic]

PS - Sheff ... it is not a good idea for you to suggest that majority vote gets a person banned. I would vote for you to stay but I would be not be a winner :(

And you know it and love it :wink:

But at least people on here can put an ugly mug to my name!
Not like a certain Wendy!!!!
The UTS pervert who love hiding!

A fair point Sheff - and when they do meet you they all say how lovely you are in real life ... which it true actually.

Maybe a 2009 BBQ should be organised on the Chase ...

[SheffieldSaddler]

PS - Sheff ... it is not a good idea for you to suggest that majority vote gets a person banned. I would vote for you to stay but I would be not be a winner :(

And you know it and love it :wink:

But at least people on here can put an ugly mug to my name!
Not like a certain Wendy!!!!
The UTS pervert who love hiding!

A fair point Sheff - and when they do meet you they all say how lovely you are in real life ... which it true actually.

Maybe a 2009 BBQ should be organised on the Chase ...

Love you!
:wink:

[King Crimson]

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.