I was banned for being a woman!

seamus

elviscostello wrote:

One user said that the post was closed at an innapropriate time, as the paedophile, who was obviously in the minority , and bound to be the subject of curiosity and some anger, got the last say more or less.

Well, someone has to get the last say. If it wasn't him, it was going to be N8 or mairead, or someone else. Most of the time when a thread is closed, loads of people are dying to reply to it. In that case, most people are going to consider it "inappropriate".

N8

seamus wrote:

Well, someone has to get the last say. If it wasn't him, it was going to be N8 or mairead, or someone else. Most of the time when a thread is closed, loads of people are dying to reply to it. In that case, most people are going to consider it "inappropriate".

correct seamus but the points made not hang unanswered when they are clearly off the wall and inaccurate.

Besides was this not what everyone there wanted - intellectualised debate and now we have someone who readily self admitted they were a paedophile and whom could answer our questions??

_feedback_

seamus wrote:

Well, someone has to get the last say. If it wasn't him, it was going to be N8 or mairead, or someone else. Most of the time when a thread is closed, loads of people are dying to reply to it. In that case, most people are going to consider it "inappropriate".

Agree seamus...... Just that it is exceptional circumstances.... It's not every day somebody admits to being a paedophile. A lot of people had a lot of questions.


.......... and nobody can seem to see the personal abuse on the thread , which was given as the reason for closing. But if the mod can point it out, I'll be the first to stand corrected.

Boston

I personally see no evidence that the OP is female.

po0k

pix plz

Boston

Exactly, get your tits out for the lads.

flogen

maireadmarie wrote:

Flogen,
I think the link you are mentioning was to do with another poster, easy to get confused, I know.
Amp only explained a short time ago why I was banned. He explained in public. I have had no communication with him privately, I assure you! In fact, I didn't even know he was the moderator.
Did I really post re. my positive thought on the paedophile thread? I must be crazy -

Apologies - my mistake.

You're right too, these pointless threads can get bewildering very quickly.

In relation to your positive thought thing - are you Victoria Mary Clarke (or a follower of her church)?

gandalf

I think this thread has served its purpose now.

amp

elviscostello wrote:

Agree seamus...... Just that it is exceptional circumstances.... It's not every day somebody admits to being a paedophile. A lot of people had a lot of questions.


.......... and nobody can seem to see the personal abuse on the thread , which was given as the reason for closing. But if the mod can point it out, I'll be the first to stand corrected.

This thread is called: I was banned for being a woman!

This thread is not an enquiry into why that thread was locked. You are off-topic.

I have no obligation to explain why the thread was locked to anyone except the owners of this website. However I will now elaborate further:

There were several sniping flames directed by what I saw as two sides in the debate. One was from people trying to have a rational non-emotive discussion of the topic and the other was people, a lot who seemed new to the forum, who were clearly highly emotive and irrational. This was not a straight division.

I felt that the flames had grown too high for the thread to be salvaged despite banning people I felt had grown too emotive. Thus I locked the thread to prevent more people from being banned.

I am not going to provide samples of abuse in that thread. It's clearly there. I will not because it would result in some people arguing that what they said is not abuse and the whole mess erupting into a dramafest.

Now, I've spent far to much time on this. I will not spend any further time on this. Onward the crusade! Bring on the cats!

GuanYin

This can't be for real

Ruggiebear wrote:

Ah you were just getting pissed off with all the attention

So long as they buy me drinks [/golddigging]

Boston

psi wrote:

So long as they buy me drinks [/golddigging]

I bought you a drink, you never called me, you never respected me in the morning, you said you loved me but you lied.

You wheren't expecting that, where yea?

N8

sorry Amp you hadn't read the postings either...

Originally Posted by amp
I see absolutely no evidence that the author of the post you link to has confessed to being a paedophile or that s/he is apologising for paedophilia.

They had clearly... in fact they answered "yes I am" and took no offense at my asking.

I had a reply post waiting rational and sited right between emotive and intellualisation - would you like it PM'ed?

Clearly the thread was closed too abruptly and no warnings were posted by you. Perhaps it was you became too emotive and thought the paedophile argument was about to win out to cries of burn them.....

PS As I understood it it was Micro was keeping this Paedo thread under watch

Boston

N8 wrote:

Clearl the thread was closed too abruptly and no warnings were posted by you.

How is it clearly, I dusagree with you, Amp good call.

PS As I understood it it was Micro was keeping this Paedo thread under watch

You seem oblivious to the way boards work. Moderators don't put dibs on threads, nor is consenus required. Either moderator would have been within there rigths to close the thread, but only the moderator that locked it, or a more senior moderator or admin is in a position to unlock it. (obviously thats just etiquette)

GuanYin

Boston wrote:

I bought you a drink, you never called me, you never respected me in the morning, you said you loved me but you lied.

You did, but you hadn't shaved, plus you're only a student and you don't own a car.

You wheren't expecting that, where yea?

Well no, I thought after the 12 unreturned voicemails you'd get the hint

amp

N8 wrote:

Clearly the thread was closed too abruptly and no warnings were posted by you. Perhaps it was you became too emotive and thought the paedophile argument was about to win out to cries of burn them.....

Clearly I'm also dating your three year old daughter. lol.

seamus

N8 wrote:

PS As I understood it it was Micro was keeping this Paedo thread under watch

That was purely was own supposition. Mods don't tag threads to watch them individually, they can act independently to close/edit/move threads.

N8

seamus wrote:

That was purely was own supposition. Mods don't tag threads to watch them individually, they can act independently to close/edit/move threads.

sorry seamus another mod told me so...

and Amp I don't have any daughters

Boston

It's all about the fast cars and easy women for some men, am I right girls.

Stark

And the bags of sweets!

Victor

N8 wrote:

seamus wrote:

That was purely was own supposition. Mods don't tag threads to watch them individually, they can act independently to close/edit/move threads.

sorry seamus another mod told me so...

Moderators may discuss a thread between themselves, but they don't always and aren't obliged to.

Boston

I was once banned for being a dick, that's almost the same as being banned for being a man, right?

Talliesin

Hi. I've been busy of late so haven't been on boards yet.

Why haven't we just site-banned this person? Has boards become a completely different site in the last month or so?

I'm confused.

r3nu4l

Talliesin wrote:

Why haven't we just site-banned this person? Has boards become a completely different site in the last month or so?

I'm confused.

Well as Cloud is directly involved and has promised to investigate the forum ban, I'd say that any site-ban should be left to his discretion.

Boston

Yea cloud got involved, which is odd as he doesn't normally deal with this bull****.

kittenkiller

feylya wrote:

Care to explain why?

Maybe it's cuz she's on the blob???
I'm always getting banned from places when my Aunt Flow is over to visit and threatening legal action over stupid little nothings when I have the painters in and of course making needless and stupid phone calls to people who don't give a sh!t when I have blood gushing out of my genitles.

It's all because I'm a woman though and not because i'm a neurotic nut job with too much time on my hands and what must be an endless supply of money in my pockets to even consider consulting a solicitor over something so pathetic.

GuanYin

Talliesin wrote:

Hi. I've been busy of late so haven't been on boards yet.

Why haven't we just site-banned this person? Has boards become a completely different site in the last month or so?

I'm confused.

:rolleyes:

The Sweeper

kittenkiller wrote:

Maybe it's cuz she's on the blob???
I'm always getting banned from places when my Aunt Flow is over to visit and threatening legal action over stupid little nothings when I have the painters in and of course making needless and stupid phone calls to people who don't give a sh!t when I have blood gushing out of my genitles.

It's all because I'm a woman though and not because i'm a neurotic nut job with too much time on my hands and what must be an endless supply of money in my pockets to even consider consulting a solicitor over something so pathetic.

/me spits tea out nose and down screen.

THAT'S IT!! I'VEE SEEN TEH LIG!HT

the_syco

amp wrote:

Clearly I'm also dating your three year old daughter. lol.

I'm in fits of laughter @ this one!

po0k

Word For The Day: Bulldyke

N8

http://mookitv.com/