Richard's domination of threads and wanting to have the last word

[NZTailender]

You know who he is, so how did you not get it?

gagfc.






Wanted my first proper use to be worth it (H)

 

[archie mac]

The only time I became annoyed with Ricard was when I wrote I was not going to post in a thread anymore (since I thought we were going around in circles), and Richard then launched into a diatribe knowing I would not respond

I was annoyed for well over 5 minutes

 

[biased indian]

He is dominating this thread also

Total Posts: 155

Richard 26
Perm 11
Fiery 9
David 7
HeathDavisSpeed 7

Rich is trying hard to increase the lead... but Fiery of late have started to catch up a little

Total Posts: 322
Richard 58
Fiery 37
dontcloseyoureyes 18
Perm 14
BoyBrumby 12

 

[Fiery]

Rich is trying hard to increase the lead... but Fiery of late have started to catch up a little

Total Posts: 322
Richard 58
Fiery 37
dontcloseyoureyes 18
Perm 14
BoyBrumby 12

I haven't tried at all...he just ****s me off so much I just can't help myself

 

[Richard]

If i respect the person, they can call me **** for all i care, i dont respect you, so you can call me Bobisback

You don't tell me what to do, nor does anyone else tell me specifically what to do, just general commands that apply to all or no-one. How extremely odd, in any case, to be bothered about what someone refers to you as based on whether you respect them or not. You're no different whether I call you Dwyer or Bobisback, nor is what I mean when I say whatever I say when your name is contained.

If i put you on ignore, 2/3rds of the forum would be bare, so thats just not an option.

I wonder who you've been talking to...

And if you find the first post where i asked you to call me by my forum name, it wasnt a dig at your, or mean, it was a nicely worded question.

Haha, um, yeah...

More than even that, though, it was a post that it would be impossible to say for certain whether you actually meant it or were just &%$£-stirring. That is a regular problem with the likes of you, Smith, Murphy, etc.

 

[Bobisback]

You're no different whether I call you Dywer or Bobisback, nor is what I mean when I say whatever I say when your name is contained.
.

If you're going to insist on using my last name at least spell it right, ffs. Had enough of this thread.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That is a regular problem with the likes of you, Smith, Murphy, etc.

****s sake, the ****s been banned for over a year. Would be pretty dumb to not know whether his posts were underhanded digs at you, seeing as though he doesn't post.

 

[andyc]

Odd thread.

 

[Richard]

****s sake, the ****s been banned for over a year. Would be pretty dumb to not know whether his posts were underhanded digs at you, seeing as though he doesn't post.

Where on Earth did I say this was exclusively posts relating to me?

I still come across his posts from time to time and half of them I can't work-out for the life of me whether he means a word he's saying in them or not. Same very often applies to you.

 

[Richard]

Whoa, wtf?

Odd thread.

TBH, I confess it applies to Cameron here too, and I can normally decode him pretty well.

 

[Langeveldt]

Pretty impressed this has gone 330 posts without getting locked

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't love the attention and I certainly don't enjoy winding-up most of the posters on this forum.

There are some people who are idiots towards me, and no, I make no apologies for not giving a &%$£ if I wind them up. I try to tone things down of times, due to the occasional request from above, and obviously there are forum rules for certain things. They give me precisely zero consideration, though, so therefore they can expect exactly the same back.

I don't use real names if the person in question doesn't want their real-name used (and that's used by anyone, and not by me specifically as I see no good reason for this - it's basically saying "you can't use my name because I say you can't", which is utter rubbish - no-one dictates to me what I say and what I don't unless said dictations cover everyone else too); the only rationale for being annoyed is "I want people's posting-IDs to be used". I've even taken away the "I don't know who you're on about" rationale. The only possible explanation left for using objecting to my use of real-names is trying to find an excuse to make a fuss, or attempting to find a criticism when you've run-out of them.

You don't tell me what to do, nor does anyone else tell me specifically what to do, just general commands that apply to all or no-one. How extremely odd, in any case, to be bothered about what someone refers to you as based on whether you respect them or not. You're no different whether I call you Dwyer or Bobisback, nor is what I mean when I say whatever I say when your name is contained.

You don't love the attention? Stop behaving like a child (could've used something stronger there) then. There's no way it's easier for you or anyone else if you have to post a link to the user when you refer to them by their real names, so must conclude you're doing it either: to draw attention to yourself, out of sheer bloody mindedness or you really are that selfish.

& if someone doesn't like you (as seems to be the case with BIB), why shouldn't he not want you to refer to him by his real name. It implies a familiarity and/or intimacy he obviously doesn't think you have.

 

[Richard]

You don't love the attention? Stop behaving like a child (could've used something stronger there) then. There's no way it's easier for you or anyone else if you have to post a link to the user when you refer to them by their real names, so must conclude you're doing it either: to draw attention to yourself, out of sheer bloody mindedness or you really are that selfish.

It's not easier in terms of the number of seconds it takes (probably about 5 for a posting-ID, 15 for a linked real-name), no, but it feels far more natural to me. And no-one can complain that they don't know who I'm on about either, because I've given them a very easy way to find-out (one that, when done the way I do it, ie by linking to posts rather than accounts, won't even be obstructed by the different-URL-prompt problem).

& if someone doesn't like you (as seems to be the case with BIB), why shouldn't he not want you to refer to him by his real name. It implies a familiarity and/or intimacy he obviously doesn't think you have.

Nice try. However, the number of people on CW who dislike each other but nonetheless know and refer to by real-name suggest it's really not a compelling implication. Who called Rodgie "AussieDominance"? And who liked Rodgie? No-one, in both cases. Who called Murphy "benchmark00"? Not many people. And Murphy was pretty well a 50:50 split on who liked him and who couldn't stand him. There are many more examples, too.

 

[Tom Halsey]

& if someone doesn't like you (as seems to be the case with BIB), why shouldn't he not want you to refer to him by his real name. It implies a familiarity and/or intimacy he obviously doesn't think you have.

No it doesn't, it implies he knows his real name. There are plenty of people who I don't much like in real life who clearly call me by my name (or **** or **** or whatever, which may or may not be why I don't like them...).

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's not easier in terms of the number of seconds it takes (probably about 5 for a posting-ID, 15 for a linked real-name), no, but it feels far more natural to me. And no-one can complain that they don't know who I'm on about either, because I've given them a very easy way to find-out (one that, when done the way I do it, ie by linking to posts rather than accounts, won't even be obstructed by the different-URL-prompt problem).

So it's a purely selfish thing. Glad that's sorted.

Nice try. However, the number of people on CW who dislike each other but nonetheless know and refer to by real-name suggest it's really not a compelling implication. Who called Rodgie "AussieDominance"? And who liked Rodgie? No-one, in both cases. Who called Murphy "benchmark00"? Not many people. And Murphy was pretty well a 50:50 split on who liked him and who couldn't stand him. There are many more examples, too.

Way to miss the point. It's his call to make, not yours, benchmark's or anyone else's.

No it doesn't, it implies he knows his real name. There are plenty of people who I don't much like in real life who clearly call me by my name (or **** or **** or whatever, which may or may not be why I don't like them...).

& he's asked Richard to stop addressing him as such. I know Sir Alex Ferguson's real name, but it doesn't follow that gives me carte blanche to call him "Ferguson" or "Fergie" should I meet him. Whereas perhaps people who actually do share an intimacy with him might be allowed to. If he asked me to stop what sort of person am I if I continue?

 

[Richard]

So it's a purely selfish thing. Glad that's sorted.

Well there's hardly anyone else to consider, is there? Unless someone specifically doesn't want their name used on the forum, it doesn't matter to anyone but me what I call people by as long as I make it clear for those who don't know.

Nonetheless, helping users unfamiliar with names to become so is hardly a bad thing. So it's not 100% selfish, no.

Way to miss the point. It's his call to make, not yours, benchmark's or anyone else's.

So he should dictate what I can and can't say? No, sorry, I don't accept that. If you don't want your name used, don't reveal it or ask for everyone not to use it; no-one has carte blanche over exactly who calls them what, otherwise I'd be compelled to call him "sir" if he made such a demand. No-one says to me "he can call me whatever but you are ONLY to call me such-and-such".

& he's asked Richard to stop addressing him as such. I know Sir Alex Ferguson's real name, but it doesn't follow that gives me carte blanche to call him "Ferguson" or "Fergie" should I meet him. Whereas perhaps people who actually do share an intimacy with him might be allowed to. If he asked me to stop what sort of person am I if I continue?

Someone who has no respect or consideration for Sir Alex, which is your carte blanche. I fail to see why I should give Bobisback any consideration when he's done nothing but insult and deride me - with little provocation, I might add.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well there's hardly anyone else to consider, is there? Unless someone specifically doesn't want their name used on the forum, it doesn't matter to anyone but me what I call people by as long as I make it clear for those who don't know.

Nonetheless, helping users unfamiliar with names to become so is hardly a bad thing. So it's not 100% selfish, no.

So he should dictate what I can and can't say? No, sorry, I don't accept that. If you don't want your name used, don't reveal it or ask for everyone not to use it; no-one has carte blanche over exactly who calls them what, otherwise I'd be compelled to call him "sir" if he made such a demand. No-one says to me "he can call me whatever but you are ONLY to call me such-and-such".

Someone who has no respect or consideration for Sir Alex, which is your carte blanche. I fail to see why I should give Bobisback any consideration when he's done nothing but insult and deride me - with little provocation, I might add.

Ultimately it boils down to you're doing it because you want to, regardless of how many people it annoys, so that is pretty much a dictionary definition of selfishness.

The rest is whinging self-justification.

 

[Richard]

The annoyance is unreasonable IMO, that's the crux of the matter. I've slowly removed every possible objection ("some people don't like their names to be used"; "no-one knows who you're on about so it's cliquey"). Basically, it's becoming clearer and clearer that some people just want me to use posting-IDs only because "it's the way I do it so therefore you should do it that way too".

AFAIC I've provided plenty justification enough for why use of real-names is no bad thing whatsoever; only if you have the preconceived notion that posting-IDs are the only way to go "because that's how I do it" could you perceive my above post as "whingey".

 

[Jamee999]

It is cliquey though. I don't think you can really get around that - someone who isn't in the "know" will understand what is going on less than someone who is - a clique.

 

[Richard]

Surely it's most welcoming of all, though, to try to help people understand who's who? Even more so than to pretend that you don't know either.

And there are always some CW-related stuff that is going to be "cliquey", TBH - someone once mentioned Fuller's fondness for thumbs; I've mentioned the Awards before now; names are no different. You're never going to get around the fact that newer or less regular members are going to have some stuff they don't understand. It'd be fruitless to try.