PMs back again - there... that's better

[Darth Surly]

I'm going to jump in here.

 

We've not been threatened by anyone - we don't want to be.

 

Let's remember who we're taking on here - lots and lots of organisations which virtually unlimited funds with access to huge legal departments.

 

We're a bunch of volunteers with a web site.

 

I think it's prudent not to underestimate ones 'enemy' - if the banks cannot close us down through 'over hand' methods, then I, for one, have no doubt that if we became more than just a nuicence to them, they would use 'under-hand' methods to shut us down.

 

If that includes bringing potentially defamatory remarks to the second party's attention in order to bring action against us, then yes, I think they would do that.

 

Remember, even if it is you that has said it, does not make you liable.

 

We (i.e. BF and I) are liable as the publishers.

 

There are many instances of this happening. Demon Internet fell foul of this when they believed that they WERE NOT the publishers of a defamatory remark and were fined about 5 million quid!

 

 

That's all well good and said... but let's get the WHOLE ACTUAL FACTS into perspective here...

 

The so-called shocking, grossly defamatory and potentially litigious comment was the word 'Muppet', yes Muppet - used once against someone who came on here and basically dissed our own legal argument in a pontificating holier-than-thou attitude to try and threaten us with the intimation that our efforts were pointless. That individual then admitted he actually knew nothing of the Law concerning his own quotes - whereas I'm backed up by a civil QC so can get some pretty good advice and certainly more than our lesser-informed friend from Experian.

 

As to JJ being hounded off - that is nonsense. I was on the phone to the Directors' office and they admitted that no one from there was going to post any further until the legal ramifications were sorted. The person that I spoke too, also admitted that JJ's comments were "not entirely accurate" and "were fanning the flames of the argument" - I recorded it all on SkyLook.

 

These are the facts, not the constant ramblings of the Mods who've now relaised that they equally went overboard in hounding someone of the forum (by using the word Muppet) - the very same accusation that I stand accused of.

 

So, all the witch-hunt brigade actually have their facts totally incorrect as they were not party to any of the conversations, and jumped in and grabbed the wrong end of a very large log, let alone a stick, and tried to inflame one word 'Muppet' into a major anti-SB witch-hunt.

 

I have used the word hundreds of times before, and never been pulled up for it... only when some of the more up-their-backside Mods start on a witch-hunt do I get lambasted. I've even used in in Court describing a particular organisation as run by Muppets... and even the judge didn't sling me in the clink for it as contempt of Court, just smiled to himself.

 

Additionally, I can see many posts where people have used the term 'stupid', 'bulls**t', etc., against insiders ('2 Minds' was one such recipient of this behaviour), and some of those comments were then ENDORSED by certain Mods.

But, I'll bet no one will go have a look at those posts.

 

So, it seems that there's one rule for the hoi polloi, and one for the Mods WHEN IT SUITS THEM. I can tolerate liars more than I can stand hypocrites, when they are, in fact, total hypocrites for using far worse language and condoning such use against other bank insiders.

 

So, no consistency in the application of the forum rules then, purely because the Mods can do what they want and the rest of us who contribute actual advice can just jolly well STFU and accept their unfair decisions. It stinks.

 

What's more, they know they're in the wrong, due to the high number of attempts to justify their actions now. Churchill once wrote that when a Govt. needs to continually justify Laws to the people, then either that Law is wrong, or doesn't serve the purpose for which it was intended.

 

He couldn't have been more right in this case.

 

This isn't about potential £5m claims - yeah right, any judge is really going to grant THAT one for 'Muppet'....NOT!, and it's not about potential trouble - I know where the libel line is, and I haven't crossed it, nor would I ... I think I know enough about English Law to a) know it, and b) not expose myself and family to financial ruin. I challenge anyone on this site to find a statement by me that would stand up in libel case... or that would ever be posted. I've been an Internet user for longer than I care to remember - I run a damn Internet/IT company for God's sake... so I think I know a little about what can and can't done on it - and I read about what goes on and who's suing who.

 

So, let's get back to the Facts.. there's the defence... now consider the overhanded manner of the Mods which was, to be blunt, ridiculous heavy-handedness. They have now managed to do exactly the same thing which they accuse me of, but which I wasn't actually responsible for... JJs OWN company told him to stop and desist.

 

As to the Mods'/Pinkies' attitude towards me since (not all of them, mind! ) - this following statement just about sums up the general maturity of those who have the responsilbility to manage this site in such a mature, friendly and concillatory manner:

 

I personally, will be glad to see the back of you, as no doubt, many other user will be.

 

Do set up your own advice centre.........if your lucky you'll stay up for 3 months without being sued for libell .

 

Good Riddence.

 

Tom.

 

(Nice spelling Tom - if you're going to talk as if you know what you're on about with 'libel' - at least spell it right!)

 

quod erat demonstrandum

 

And that, your honour, concludes the case for the defence... which as you well know has been sent via PM but NEVER answered....curiously.

 

[standing by for anti-SB Death Star laser zapping session.. and pressing stopwatch to see how long this one stays on for]

[sarahpp]

The informtion which SB posted wasn't just helpful in my opinion. It was a vital move forward.

[Glenn UK]

Dayglo

 

For clairifcation i wasnt trying to suggest we would have got so far, i was only saying i dont know if or when we would have got there bearing in mind the main thrust of the board.

 

Glenn

[dayglo]

blimey - risen from the dead for one more blast? It's like every horror film you've ever seen - you think the monster/alien/ghost is dead, soft music begins everyone starts to reflect and then "bang" the arm shoots up through the ground and everyone jumps! brilliant.

[dayglo]

Dayglo

 

For clairifcation i wasnt trying to suggest we would have got so far, i was only saying i dont know if or when we would have got there bearing in mind the main thrust of the board.

 

Glenn

 

ok

[Darth Surly]

blimey - risen from the dead for one more blast? It's like every horror film you've ever seen - you think the monster/alien/ghost is dead, soft music begins everyone starts to reflect and then "bang" the arm shoots up through the ground and everyone jumps! brilliant.

 

Allegedly this is the funniest thing in here I've read in a long time... nice to see that SOMEONE else has a sense of humour, wit and sarcasm (allegedly), and isn't so far up his own backside that he's actually inside out....(that's if I'm allowed to offer my personal opinion...which I presume I can, as I didn't actually name anyone individually)... allegedly.

 

When the other ID starts working properly, particularly being able to change my profile info, then I'll pop back and get the post - guess I'll carry on helping privately via normal email, as I'm only allowed 5 PMs at a time at the moment, and not to more than one person at a time [sigh] allegedly...

 

P.S. Dayglo... is it okay if I accuse you of being witty? I wouldn't want you to start blubbing and going off in a sulk or reporting me to the prefects for a good lashing.

[dayglo]

right - that's enough, I'm off to tell the teacher.

 

I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write faster than anybody who can write better."

- A. J. Liebling (1904-1963)

[dayglo]

anyway what sort of person threatens to leave and then comes straight back, harumph, no tenancity - that's your problem!

[reload]

Jesus H Christ people.

 

I think we all - Surly, Mods and Pinks - need to take a step back here and remember exactly who we're fighting and what we're doing here.

 

I'll be the first to admit that Mod and Pinks can make mistakes. This is not an admission that we have - I wouldn't want to put words in other people's mouths. Neither will I ask the Mods or other Pinks to step up and swallow it down. Neither am I going to post here any comments made privately, or the contents of any private messages.

 

That said - one thing I want everyone to remember. This site is 100% voluntary. Some of the Mods/Pinks are more experienced than others with these type of forums. Some of them have a much tighter policy on rule infringements than others.

 

With this type of setup, this number of users and this variety of posting, I will certainly twitch an eyebrow or two at anyone who will insist on an absolutely postively 100% consistent moderation and rule enforcement.

 

That said, on the flip side of the argument the efforts at alienation weren't entirely one sided, Surly. Some of the comments you left in your personal profile, certainly, could only be aimed at enflaming Mods and Pinks. Yes, I can understand you feel aggrevied over the moderation in your post about JJ. I won't state my opinion on whether the application of the rules was correct in this instance. However, to quote Mahatma himself: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

 

Likewise, removing the scanned copies of letters from your host end so that it appeared your letters had been edited out by a moderator was similarly uncalled for. I can't comment on what happened to your signature or to your private message box; when I attempted to send you a PM I got bounced out with the message 'The user has selected not to receive private messages, or the capability to do so has been removed from his account by a moderator'. One thing I do know for sure is that no moderator informed the rest of us they had done so - whether one did without telling us or not, I do not know. I do not believe any of them would have done so.

 

Suffice to say however, that your advice and character of posts is appreciated and greatly received Surly. I sincerely hope that you do stay with the CAG forums. Certainly, I am aware of at least two pinks who have suggested quitting the forums altogether over this whole débâcle. Whether they will or not I don't know - again, it's down to them and I don't presume to comment on their behalf.

 

Lastly, please note I am not trying to justify anything in this post. For the record, I supported you in conversation with the Mods/Pinks - I even recommended you as a Pink. Which suffice to say, means I hold you in relatively high regard. By the same token, I hold the Mods and other Pinks in a similarly high regard - without them, this site would not even exist, and I sincerely doubt I would have been able to get my money back from Lloyds TSB as 'easily' as I did.

 

Now, can we all put this behind us and get back to the task we are all here for?

[reload]

Serious stuff over.

 

I want cake.

[Darth Surly]

Jesus H Christ people.

Ouch! - Good thing I'm not of THAT persuasion!

 

I think we all - Surly, Mods and Pinks - need to take a step back here and remember exactly who we're fighting and what we're doing here.

Well spotted! Couldn't have summed it up any beteer m'lud.

 

That said, on the flip side of the argument the efforts at alienation weren't entirely one sided, Surly. Some of the comments you left in your personal profile, certainly, could only be aimed at enflaming Mods and Pinks.

Of course...absolutely... I always take the p**s when I see idiots at play but at least I have the balls to admit it!

 

Yes, I can understand you feel aggrevied over the moderation in your post about JJ. I won't state my opinion on whether the application of the rules was correct in this instance. However, to quote Mahatma himself: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

MG - one of the inspirations of my life... hence the 'lawful protest' that has been pursued since my 'detention'

 

Likewise, removing the scanned copies of letters from your host end so that it appeared your letters had been edited out by a moderator was similarly uncalled for.

Erm, when will people actually read the thread in the total p**s-take and sarcastic tone in which it was written??? Sheeeesh. Lighten up, people... purleeez.

 

I can't comment on what happened to your signature or to your private message box; when I attempted to send you a PM I got bounced out with the message 'The user has selected not to receive private messages, or the capability to do so has been removed from his account by a moderator'. One thing I do know for sure is that no moderator informed the rest of us they had done so - whether one did without telling us or not, I do not know. I do not believe any of them would have done so.

 

Guess we'll have to put THOSE ones down to software glitches then... which always seemed to happen when a particular Mod was online... ..may I respectfully suggest a little bit more 'greenie training' for him/her(?)

 

Certainly, I am aware of at least two pinks who have suggested quitting the forums altogether over this whole débâcle. Whether they will or not I don't know - again, it's down to them and I don't presume to comment on their behalf.

Now, now, children... no falling on swords... they're sharp and will make your eyes smart as they go in...

 

I even recommended you as a Pink.

Thanks... but No Thanks, as I've seen what is does to SOME people... go all fluffy and eyes start twirling or turn very sheepish...

No, I think I'd rather graft on the 'real' work than sit there admiring my pink/green badge and arbitrarily interpreting common sense, etc.. THAT'S NOT AIMED AT ALL OF YOU... SOME OF YOU ARE NICE PEOPLE...OKAY???? HAPPY NOW???

However, at least the last 48 hours has shown up exactly who can logically back up their arguments, and who is a waste of space jumping on the witch-hunt bandwagon... which has been quite enlightening!! But, at least I know who I don't want to get any advice from - I've made a mental list.

 

BTW... quick suggestion... greenies and pinkies should be nominated, and then put themsleves up for votes... ouch!!!!...don't throw things...owwww!....look, chairs hurt.... okay, I'll just shut up then!!! phew!

 

Now, can we all put this behind us and get back to the task we are all here for?

 

I would, but my old ID is still ...ermm... shall we say... "software broken".

 

I'm not one for holding grudges - I was not brought up like that, and yes I've read MG's books - but the ball is most definitely in the court (pardon the pun) of the two main men.

 

If my account is ...ermm..."software fixed", and restored to the state that I can get the toolbox out on it and mend the sig. and other issues... then we can all give each other a big Tellytubby hug and move on (too much watching TV with my daughter there, I'm afraid.... can't believe I've just said that).

 

I also don't think it's neceesary any longer (in fact, it's plain childish) to have my postings going through the Mod filter... they can always remove them later if they seriously think I'm just about to put my family on the line for £5m of libel writ (yeah...right!)... after all, they seem to enjoy it so much.

 

In all, this has been one of the funniest episodes that I have EVER seen on the Internet - you couldn't pay for scripts like these - and it has just highlighted how seriously some people take their lives...people, get some humour on board, purleeeeeeeez.

 

So, over to the joint Chiefs of Staff, for their considered opinion.... hopefully not via the juinor flying officer posse.

 

And that concludes the summing up...Now where's that cake?...and lots of it.

 

P.S. Would you like me back as SurlyMuppet, or 'Surly Strikes Back' or how about 'The Return of Surly'... 'The Phantom Pain in the A**e'...

 

Hey... at least I have a sense of humour...and can take the mick out of the situation....[slowly watching some pinkie systolics hit 280+]

[Guest katzcafe]

How about "Surly Cowell" (ment with respect!) and the "why factor"

 

(speaks his /her mind, takes no s**t, can not be intimidated)

[Notty]

Nice one!

[dave]

I'm not sure what you mean by broken.

 

I have just checked in the admin panel, and your username is fine.

[Notty]

I think it's his heart that is broken eh?

[Guest katzcafe]

Is there a "Stripe" or "Gizmo" around????

[dave]

If they seriously think I'm just about to put my family on the line for £5m of libel writ (yeah...right!)

 

Ok, once again ;-) The £5m was a reference to the case against Demon Internet, which they lost (as publishers of the defamatory comments).

 

YOU wouldn't be putting yourself on the line at all - as you probably already know - the publishers would be.

[Guest katzcafe]

It's Stripe! drinking after midnight, we were warned!!!!!

[Notty]

There's never a Gizmo about when you want one!

[Guest katzcafe]

I've found that out more than once!

[SurlyBonds]

Ok, once again ;-) The £5m was a reference to the case against Demon Internet, which they lost (as publishers of the defamatory comments).

 

YOU wouldn't be putting yourself on the line at all - as you probably already know - the publishers would be.

[/color]

 

Dave, I think you know me well enough that neither would I place myslef in a position of potential financial ruin, nor would I do it for the site.

 

We are, I believe, all taking things further into the realms of Westminster to get more political coverages of our respective battles. I am not of a mind to jeaopardise the credibility of the test case, I'm working on, by damaging my own case.

 

Yes, I've got attitude, and I fully admit that I'm a sarcastic SOB, don't take prisoners, and I don't do political correctness and hate inequality with a near-deathwish mentality...but ATEOTD I am here to help on the bits that I know about... hence why I don't creep into other forums and talk bo**ocks.

 

P.S. I note that Keith Waterhouse has, again, used 'Muppet' in his column...

[dave]

Yes, I know - I'd like this to just stop now really. Personally I don't think you would put yourself or this site in danger, but you do understand the reasons for being squeaky-clean.

 

I'm sure that the moment we become more than just a pain in the backside for the banks, they will fight back any way they can.

 

Love you or hate you (I personally am completely neutral ;-) ) - your advice is good, and you knowledge is excellent. We're all battling on the same side, and we should stay that way.

 

For any of us to fight would mean the banks had 'divided and conqured' without even trying to make that happen.

 

Just out of interest though, Keith Waterhouse would have the money and might of the newspaper behind him should anyone attempt to 'have him' for it.

 

hence why I don't creep into other forums and talk bo**ocks.

 

I do, 'cos I can't do it here ;-)

[SurlyBonds]

 

Love you or hate you (I personally am completely neutral ;-) )

 

ROFLMAO...

[gizmo111]

Is there a "Stipe" or "Gizmo" around????

 

mmmmm

[Darth Surly]

I think it's his heart that is broken eh?

 

 

Uh huh? Yep, sobbing into my keyboard at the very thought of not posting on a free internet site.... NOT!! Get real!

 

BTW, as per your PM to me, where in Nottingham are you from???

 

[Troll warning level raised to DEFCON 4]