Has been removed at the request of the originator.
10 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_barcrest junky_*
Guest_barcrest junky_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2014 - 06:58 PM
Ok Alex, fair does, but that doesn't address in any way the treatment meted out on the original thread, to which I raised my objection. Is it going to be addressed or left hanging?
Gazza
Gazza
#3
Guest_Tommy c_*
Guest_Tommy c_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2014 - 07:03 PM
Gaz i don't know why you bother posting mate,you will just be shot down and told your a shit stirrer.Like i was in the other thread that was removed about 7pm.
#4
aaamusements
-
- Administrators
-
- 3508 posts
Admin
Posted 15 April 2014 - 07:06 PM
The problem is that this thread now potentially becomes the replacement for the one that was deleted, with all the inherent problems of that deleted thread... Thus I regret the courtesy of making this thread as explanation of the missing one. Which would be unfortunate.
Edit: Which is unfortunate.
Edit: Which is unfortunate.
- ady likes this
#5
Guest_barcrest junky_*
Guest_barcrest junky_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2014 - 07:29 PM
The problem is that this thread now potentially becomes the replacement for the one that was deleted, with all the inherent problems of that deleted thread... Thus I regret the courtesy of making this thread as explanation of the missing one. Which would be unfortunate.
Edit: Which is unfortunate.
May I suggest an edit of the name, so it ceases to be the original thread in its entirety. That would neatly get around that unfortunate problem.
Gaz i don't know why you bother posting mate,you will just be shot down and told your a shit stirrer.Like i was in the other thread that was removed about 7pm.
If I get accused of being a shit stirrer I shall ask why. Clearly this thread has been unlocked and had other posts made to it before it was deleted, which I have missed, which is also unfortunate. However I am not unduly perturbed by this. I shall just make the point again.
Here is a link to the forum rules.
http://www.fruit-emu...tion=boardrules
I believe that on the original deleted post 2 moderators / administrators contravened these rules, specifically Rule 1, and the part about not tolerating ...personal attacks. I consider them to the personal attacks as I do not believe they would have been posted had they not have been responding to posts from 2 specific members, namely Vecs and RDP. On that basis they are de-facto personal attacks.
So I want to know what is going to be done about this breach of the published rules, which all the members have to abide by.
From the deluge of PMs I have received today I would say I am not the only one who wants answers.
Thanks
Gary
#6
aaamusements
-
- Administrators
-
- 3508 posts
Admin
Posted 15 April 2014 - 07:50 PM
It strikes me as odd that whilst you received a deluge of PMs today, I got exactly two (and one of those was a question about their thread being deleted).
#7
ady
-
- Moderators
-
- 14204 posts
The furniture
Posted 15 April 2014 - 07:51 PM
Makes a change not to see my name mentioned of late....
As Alex said above..........He didn't have so many as is suggested...
I sometimes think what PM's really are?.....
#8
chasnbons
-
- Regulars
-
- 1282 posts
Junior Member
Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:11 PM
It strikes me as odd that whilst you received a deluge of PMs today, I got exactly two (and one of those was a question about their thread being deleted).
The other one was from me, which was read at 4.25 today by yourself, and I still haven't had a reply over 5 hours later, BJ on the other hand has replied to his, whether the deluge consisted of 2 or 22 pm's. So maybe that's why he had more than you did Alex, because people knew he'd reply.
Ignoring or hiding the facts won't make the problem disappear.
So I ask the same as Gazza what is going to be done please, about the breach of rules made by 2 of your staff
EDITED to say that I had a reply as I was typing this post, to which I have replied, so if I suddenly vanish, then I've been banned!
Edited by chasnbons, 15 April 2014 - 08:20 PM.
#9
Guest_barcrest junky_*
Guest_barcrest junky_*
-
- Guests
Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:17 PM
It strikes me as odd that whilst you received a deluge of PMs today, I got exactly two (and one of those was a question about their thread being deleted).
It wasn't odd, it was even; I had **12. All to a tee expressing their backing for my asking the question that they wanted asking. No point in swamping you, the answer should be the same, immaterial of the number of times it is answered. That is when it is answered. So you have shared yours and I have shared mine. Do I now get an answer?
Makes a change not to see my name mentioned of late....
As Alex said above..........He didn't have so many as is suggested...
I sometimes think what PM's really are?.....
I wonder what relevance it is as to what PMs are? There are no rules about disclosing the contents of PMs, unless I am mistaken - do point out if I am.
I don't recall making an comments about the number of PMs Alex has had. I am unconcerned as it has no relevance to the provision of an answer to the question I asked.
Yes, it does make a change for you not to be involved Ady, you have been the main protagonist a number of times. Perhaps I should mention a poem, to get you involved?
Gary
**Now up to 17, so yes it is back at odd. No wavering in the subject though.
Edited by barcrest junky, 15 April 2014 - 08:26 PM.
#10
aaamusements
-
- Administrators
-
- 3508 posts
Admin
Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:26 PM
The other one was from me, which was read at 4.25 today by yourself, and I still haven't had a reply over 5 hours later, BJ on the other hand has replied to his, whether the deluge consisted of 2 or 22 pm's. So maybe that's why he had more than you did Alex, because people knew he'd reply.
Ignoring or hiding the facts won't make the problem disappear.
So I ask the same as Gazza what is going to be done please, about the breach of rules made by 2 of your staff
Having just replied to your message at 9.37 and then coming back here to find the above, I will have to be honest and say that I'm quite angry. However I'm also endlessly patient and diplomatic, and so I won't reply with what I'm actually thinking.
I will however tell you that at 4.30 I was just leaving work, having arrived there at 7.30 this morning. My job is fairly stressful and today I didn't have a lunch break (again).
Having got home I had lots of work to do. I haven't checked my emails for days. Unfortunately instead I have had to attempt to adjudicate over an internet argument for which I have no solution.
It's truely a wonder and a miracle that I have any hair left at all by now...
#11
chasnbons
-
- Regulars
-
- 1282 posts
Junior Member
Posted 15 April 2014 - 08:30 PM
Sorry if you're angry Alex, maybe you could use that anger in a positive way, and aim it at the people who's caused all this stress for you.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
