How many temporary bans...

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What I commented on was whether the post was in jest or in seriousness or not. Which it patently wasn't, any fool who knows Bennett can see that. It's outrageous, frankly, to suggest otherwise and smacks of trying, yes, to stir trouble.

But the point is that if anyone construed it as being 'in serious' then it needs to be judged as such. How many visitors to this site come along looking for a nice forum to join with decent discussion and take Steds' comment seriously as Sanz appears to. None of these potential new members know Steds and if his comment deterred on person from joining then Sanz's comment is a valid one.

 

[NZTailender]

I agree with that. Not enough bannings going on; moderators seem to either be unwilling, unable or not around enough to exert control to prevent some of the mud slinging that goes on here. If that means temporarily banning respected and long standing members in aid of reducing the occurrences of these feuds then so be it. .

Despot Heath is more than willing to terminate some memberships here with extreme prejudice if so required.

Yeah look, there was a rule brought in to try and stop anti-social type behaviour on the forum, and a few bans were handed out after it's inception. Now I feel a few more bans need to be handed out under this rule. Either enforce the rule or don't have it at all.


Plus, someone needs to ban the **** Mitchell again.

 

[Richard]

But the point is that if anyone construed it as being 'in serious' then it needs to be judged as such. How many visitors to this site come along looking for a nice forum to join with decent discussion and take Steds' comment seriously as Sanz appears to. None of these potential new members know Steds and if his comment deterred on person from joining then Sanz's comment is a valid one.

Please, stop telling me stuff I've already said myself. I said, did I not, that Bennett's comment was a deplorable one and certainly one that we don't want visitors to the site coming accross - especially from a Staff Member. He should not have posted that post, that is disputed by few.

Sanz's comment was of an altogether totally different nature - suggesting that he knew Bennett's comment was serious, that he was being Islamophobic\xenophobic\racist. Which he wasn't. He might have been allowing those who did not know him to think he was, but there is absolutely no way on Earth he actually was.

 

[Richard]

Plus, someone needs to ban the **** Mitchell again.

Jealous?

 

[Burgey]

Who's Mitchell?

And has Murphy returned?

 

[Richard]

Mathew Mitchell - with a "teh" tacked onto his the shortened version of his first name.

BTW - foresee closure of this thread fairly soon. Am off to bed now, and would bet it'd be closed by the time I wake.

EDIT: Murphy has returned, many times. I don't know whether this latest and absolutely blatant one is an authorised one or not.

 

[cpr]

I read what he posted and it didn't look like any attempt at humour.

Sanz's comment was of an altogether totally different nature - suggesting that he knew Bennett's comment was serious, that he was being Islamophobic\xenophobic\racist. Which he wasn't. He might have been allowing those who did not know him to think he was, but there is absolutely no way on Earth he actually was.

Quoting the part you quoted Richard, and comparing it to what you've put in the quote from yourself, i disagree.

What Sanz has said is pretty straightforward. He read the post, and to him it didnt resemble humour in any shape or form. He never said anything about Steds being Islamophobic\xenophobic\racist, just he didnt see any humour in it. Considering were talking about the meaning behind Sted's original post being misconstrued, I personally think your misconstruing the meaning behind Sanz's post.

That proves a point IMO, that you can only take whats written on face value, as reading any deeper meaning is a pretty difficult task, which is why theres been a bit of a barney about the original 'joke'



Think the biggest laugh coming from the 'joke' will be from Steds on his return, at seeing all the uproar going on on his behalf.

 

[James]

I don't personally see any reason for closing the thread, yet anyway. It's interesting to hear members view point on the subject. Especially when it's done in an adult fashion.

I've always said that members are welcome to voice their opinions/concerns. It's when it turns into personal abuse being directed towards the mod team or fellow members when it gets stopped.

 

[Richard]

Quoting the part you quoted Richard, and comparing it to what you've put in the quote from yourself, i disagree.

What Sanz has said is pretty straightforward. He read the post, and to him it didnt resemble humour in any shape or form. He never said anything about Steds being Islamophobic\xenophobic\racist, just he didnt see any humour in it. Considering were talking about the meaning behind Sted's original post being misconstrued, I personally think your misconstruing the meaning behind Sanz's post.

That proves a point IMO, that you can only take whats written on face value, as reading any deeper meaning is a pretty difficult task, which is why theres been a bit of a barney about the original 'joke'

To me, "it didn't look like any attempt at humour" suggests pretty blatantly that he's saying that, basically, Bennett was endorsing the genuine usage of such a gag. If that comment was intended to be a genuine gag, rather than a "look, wouldn't this be a stupid gag", then, yes, it would make Bennett an Islamophobe\xenophobe\racist.

To me, it looked like someone saying that they could tell Bennett was endorsing a viewpoint of the nature named above (CBA typing it out again). Which, frankly, they can't. He was, in fact, taking the piss out of it. I know the lad reasonably well, and there's no way in a million years he's that way inclined. If anyone tries to imply that he is, then I'll say they're talking bull&$£%.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Buddh has barely posted here in the last 6 months for reasons totally unrelated to moderation.

And the new benchmark isn't Murphy.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Quoting the part you quoted Richard, and comparing it to what you've put in the quote from yourself, i disagree.... I personally think your misconstruing the meaning behind Sanz's post.

I quite agree with you cpr, and whilst I think Richard honestly believes what he says, I feel his judgement has been clouded due to all to obvious animosity with which himself and Sanz view each other.

Especially when it's done in an adult fashion.

Haha! I can soon solve that

Richard - may I be so bold as to suggest that you take a deep breath, chill out and listen to "The Living Years" by Mike and the Mechanics. I'm sure after listening to this all-too-real moral tale for the 20th Century, you'll be all too willing to clear the air with Sanz. If you don't, I'll make you listen to "The Living Years" by Mike and the Mechanics again and again until you'll be begging to clear the air with Sanz. Likewise, Sanz should listen to "(Don't you) Forget about Me" by Simple Minds to the same effect.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah look, there was a rule brought in to try and stop anti-social type behaviour on the forum, and a few bans were handed out after it's inception. Now I feel a few more bans need to be handed out under this rule. Either enforce the rule or don't have it at all.


Plus, someone needs to ban the **** Mitchell again.

The problem I see with banning people willy nilly is we could get someone who is offended by absolutely everything reporting posts constantly.

Of course we could ban the theoretical person, but then someone might get offended...see where this is going?

Case by case basis is probably the way to go.

 

[Matteh]

Plus, someone needs to ban the **** Mitchell again.

Jealous?

Yeah he is. Told him last night he wasn't my type, Geg didn't take it well.

 

[Matteh]

Haha! I can soon solve that

Richard - may I be so bold as to suggest that you take a deep breath, chill out and listen to "The Living Years" by Mike and the Mechanics. I'm sure after listening to this all-too-real moral tale for the 20th Century, you'll be all too willing to clear the air with Sanz. If you don't, I'll make you listen to "The Living Years" by Mike and the Mechanics again and again until you'll be begging to clear the air with Sanz. Likewise, Sanz should listen to "(Don't you) Forget about Me" by Simple Minds to the same effect.

Tune.

 

[cpr]

To me, "it didn't look like any attempt at humour" suggests pretty blatantly that he's saying that, basically, Bennett was endorsing the genuine usage of such a gag. If that comment was intended to be a genuine gag, rather than a "look, wouldn't this be a stupid gag", then, yes, it would make Bennett an Islamophobe\xenophobe\racist.

To me, it looked like someone saying that they could tell Bennett was endorsing a viewpoint of the nature named above (CBA typing it out again). Which, frankly, they can't. He was, in fact, taking the piss out of it. I know the lad reasonably well, and there's no way in a million years he's that way inclined. If anyone tries to imply that he is, then I'll say they're talking bull&$£%.

Its not saying 'he could tell' anything. Even if everyone on here 'could tell' what was meant behind each post, they shouldnt. End of day Sanz looked at it and took it on face value, which even I did, and i'm well aware of Sted's character and humour. Doesnt matter what intent was behind the post, it came accross as being inappropriate (not racist or anything, just grossly innapropriate. There is a difference), and it doesnt matter if 99% of us realise that its not serious/racist/anything but a p*ss poor joke in the lame jokes thread, it still shouldnt have been posted, as theres much much more than enough ambiguity in the post to offend someone who's not a good friend of steds.

Like i've said, mebbie a ban was harsh, deletion and a warning fairer, but rules are rules, and as much as i like the fella, i cant find a way to twist the perception to make it fall within the rules.

 

[Adamc]

Haha, can't believe Bennett was banned for that. I actually thought the 'warning' was in jest until I read this thread.

 

[Smudge]

EDIT: Murphy has returned, many times.

That's news to me. From my conversations with him, he has no interest whatsoever to post on this forum again.

 

[Agent TBY]

I quite agree with you cpr, and whilst I think Richard honestly believes what he says, I feel his judgement has been clouded due to all to obvious animosity with which himself and Sanz view each other.

I can't believe I'm breaking my palindrome post count to stick up for Richard, but I can see the point he's making here which I agree with, and it's got nothing to do with Sanz whatsoever.

While I do understand it was inappropriate, it was funny, being a one-liner dig at the ridiculous nutcase that was the Sudan judgement and not Muslims in general, and it was posted in the "Lame Joke" thread, so a ban is a bit too harsh.

That being said, DAC.

 

[roseboy64]

What does that mean?

 

[Sanz]

Wow, My one statement has caused a stir here, Thanks Richard.

Anyways, for the record, I do not know steds personally, I have not had much discussions with him on this forum, I have no reason to like or dislike him. That said I have stayed at CW to form an opinion about him and according to that opinion, he doesn't come across as a racist or islamophobic individual and I never suggested that.

That said, I still standby statement that, to me, his post didn't look like an attempt at humor, I don't know why he made that statement, perhaps he was annoyed at the so called Muslim world for making a fuss over something as trivial as the incident in Sudan or may be he had strong feelings on the subject (which it seems he did). It looked more than a simple attempt at humor and that is my opinion and I am not alone if I believe that.