Kim would you explain

david

david

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
222
Location
Talland Bay, Cornwall
Visit site
exactly why you removed my post of earlier today?

I can understand it's removal if it were to put you or your company in a legal/illegal situation.

I could also understand it if the majority on this BB were under 5 years old. Or is that what you would prefer?


<hr width=100% size=1>David
 
Reason

Two complaints in five minutes by email and two complaints in replies to your post equals four moans in short order...that's something of a record and it seems that some people were not keen. Perhaps they did as I did, viewed the first page of the link and had little appetite to see if it got any better?

Put it down to a reactive and subjective call, perhaps influenced by watching an hour of Oliver Cromwell last night. Although I'm not sure that Scuttlebutt will exactly lose out from its absence? I'm not going to go as far as to ban carols at Christmas and my kindergarten marketing campaign is currently on hold.

To be honest, although I rarely intervene I'm also getting tired of this sail versus power thing. It seems to work well in the anonymity of a bulletin board but every time the two 'sides' get together somewhere they seem to discover that they are all okay really.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by kimhollamby on 25/11/2003 10:23 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Re: Reason

Of course now we're all very curious about what we have missed!!

Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>
server_on_fire_md_wht.gif
 
Ah Oliver Cromwell

that explains it, I suppose your his number one fan. I expect you would like to ban Christmas given half a chance.
Personally given the post was good enough for the Cruising World BB and BYM without being edited out by narrow minded thought police that roam Scuttlebut I think the majority of readers would know it was a lighthearted posting and posted without malice towards anyone. I also think that the posters here are educated enough to choose what they do or do not read and that should be their choice not yours.

<hr width=100% size=1>David
 
Re: Reason

Like Ian, I am now intrigued by what we have missed.

In more general terms I would normally respect your editorial rights for all the reasons you have explained on many occasions.

Although not having seen the actual posts on this occasion, it seems a little strange that you have pulled the posts because you are 'tired of this sail versus power thing'. As a regular forumite, I also get tired of some of the subject matter too as it is repetitive, and it must be moreso for you, as you have to take more notice of everything on the forum.

I hope you are going to tell me I've got the wrong end of the stick, and that's not really the reason you pulled David's post.

<hr width=100% size=1>People who think they know it all are very annoying to those of us that do.
 
Re: Reason

Ian I'll PM you with the link, then you might be able to sneek back to scuttlebut and add your opinion /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>David
 
Re: Reason

Well, blimey - having visited the links I have to say you were pushing your luck -

Perhaps you should reconsider your application for the diplomatic corps?

What about trying a thread on insurance?



Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>
server_on_fire_md_wht.gif
 
Re: BYM

Yes I can understand the undertones of your remarks James, I for one refuse to post in threads that are of a personal attack or of a political/religious nature. But at least on BYM you have the choice to read it or not. I suspect your reference was a posting by W, sadly there are people in this world who prefer to write verbal diarrhea

<hr width=100% size=1>David
 
Re: BYM

And same goes for the other forum that was mentioned - burdened with drivel and idiocy.

Quite happy to say that I am right behind Kim on this one.

Always a matter of personal opinion but while I have no difficulties with raves about parrots, scottish skirls, the jokes and the other myriad of things that people complain about from time to time, I found that post offensive, targetted, and it was certain to cause trouble.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Narrow minded thought police

Well actually, I'd never ban Christmas, well not after about 17 December, and who could anyway? Even Cromwell's Roundheads sang carols up their sleeves when he wasn't looking. So it's a great theory but one you won't see proven in reality.

If it is necessary to highlight a slang term for the exit point of someone's back passage to describe true feelings about them then I guess that is fine too. But it seems you were in a bit of a minority this morning. It may surprise you but I don't formulate the way we run things here based upon other sites' bulletin boards, so I worry not on this occasion that you have gifted the link elsewhere.

Narrow minded? No, whatever my personal feelings about anything in particular I trained myself a long time ago to put those aside to a significant degree. Consequently while I leave 99 point something per cent of all posts alone (which, given the volume, means a lot of posts of all kinds) I'm not averse to responding to the wishes of those who find certain things offensive or unnecessary, the latter being a particularly old fashioned notion that nevertheless remains appropriate for ybw.com forums under my tenure. No doubt this stance will earn me a fleeting review of the usual unflattering kind elsewhere from time to time but hey, it's fun to be an insecure jumped up little dictator with no idea of how the real world works.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Crawling wee mannie

I wonder if that will protect you from the yellow card I think you were close to being awarded

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top