why was "slabber" banned from sg.org?



  • <P>bit of a silly question considering this is an annonymous forum where people post under a nickname...</P> <P>carry on</P> <P> </P>
  • @chrisn4<;div><br></div><div>8 banned members. 6, possibly 7 of those are robot spam <i>(no idea what sgsteve was about)</i>. Another 1,586 members not banned. <i>Seeker of truth and justice</i>? Please.</div><div><br></div><div>Slabber was banned for a flurry of incendiary comments that some may have found amusing, but others didn't. I can't remember what they were now but the above statistics should illustrate we don't do it lightly.</div><div><br></div><div>Stop being a dick.<br></div>
  • <P>why did you ban sgsteve?</P> <P>i respect your right to be rude,thats freedom of speech.</P> <P>for me i am pursuing a point of principle</P> <P>right so if some of the daily mail reading mary whitehouse brigade send you emails to say they are offended then you ban someone,without telling sg.org regulars at the time that you have banned him/her and why?</P> <P>that means that people who to use your crude languauage are "being a dick" cant thoroughly invesigate what islington council are up to via this sgwebsite as you can ban them if you are fed up with them n ban em</P> <P>but then on a thread on harringayonline andy says he never bans anyone except spammers?</P> <P>whether you ban people lightly or not isnt the point,the point is that people have been banned without an explanation given to the posters of sg.org</P> <P> </P> <P> </P>
  • edited November 2011
    <p>David and Andy - just wanted to take this opportunity to say I think this forum is great and you guys are awesome for maintaining it so the rest of us can enjoy it for free. It takes real commitment and effort to do that, and I for one really appreciate it.</p><p> </p>
  • chrisN4 - thank you for coming back.  We've missed you.
  • Thanks Donna.<div><br></div><div>@chrisn4 - I can't shut you up and by saying this I'm probably encouraging another 400 words repeating the same dull, pointless nonsense but I maintain that you are a dick.</div>
  • <P>david n andy - rather than banning a contributor to this forum,why not  write a thread where you warn them that they could be banned if they break your rules,whatever they are,bit more tolerant approach.</P> <P>people might not read an email you send them warning of being banned,so if you tell them by starting a thread on forum that they could be banned then they will get the message,and everyone else can see what you have written so its clear</P> <P>people can say if they think someone should be banned or not based on the evidence</P> <P>seems a bit more fair,if you want to be fair</P> <P>fanks gov</P> <P>carry on</P> <P> </P>
  • The argument that we stifle angry, dissenting left wing voices - even those who post when they're drunk - is rather undermined by the fact that we've never banned or edited Kreuzkav...
  • dave n andy - i actually dont want to upset you,just for  some,just for the sake of it argument on this one,it really is an issue of principle - a question of morality if you like - i just dont want to see people banned with no warning,as perhaps a man gets drunk down the pub and writes some daft comments,then he is banned, perhaps he deserves a warning first as he might not like it if he is banned - i am not talking about daft comments that myself or slabber might write which perhaps deserve a banning if that is the right thing to do , i am talking about some quiet person who writes some comments then its a straight ban no judge and jury just .... you are banned end of,that cant be right...  to have your right to freedom of expression closed down by someone you see as in a position of authority in some respects in the local community...with no explanation to the punters on this forum 
  • <P>andy and dave - you arent listening and you are being dismissive.Why not engage with the logical points i am making rather than try and divert the argument to kreuzkav.why change the subject to kreuzkav.</P> <P>people will see you are trying to not answer my questions by changing the subject...classic tactic by authorities...</P> <P>you obviously wont address the point i am making which is: if you have good reason to ban someone,which i am not disputing,warn the person openly on the forum for all to see why you want to ban them,then if you have to ban someone tell the people on the forum why you have banned someone</P> <P>its about clarity and being open...and being kind...</P> <P>i think perhaps you andy and david dont want to engage with the points i am making here</P> <P>nothing i can do about that .... but readers will see the point i am making</P> <P>because perhaps its them that gets banned next</P> <P>and they wont have a right of reply as their voice will have been silenced unless u let em back on again</P> <P>carry on</P> <P>  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>
  • I'm interested to know why you think that Andy and David should have to explain a decision that they have made about a forum which they set up and very graciously let us use. Free of charge. I believe that the only rule they have specifically laid down is 'be excellent to each other'. If a member chooses to be anything less than respectful or excellent to other members then I see no reason why Andy and David shouldn't take whatever action they see fit. The statistics speak for themselves. I would like to add mountain and molehill to the list of colloquialisms.
  • edited November 2011
    <P>miss annie - dave and andy who run this forum have a right to do anything they want,they arent breaking the law.however i am saying what i think is the morally right behaviour that andy and david should do.but they dont have to explain any decision to me or anyone else.why should they they got the right to do wot they want  </P> <P>"be excellent to each other"</P> <P>are the people who sl-g off the kids who work behind the counter in local shops being "excellent to each other". no the managers of those shops could sack those young people based on some snotty nosed stuck up comments that local people make about the customer service that those people have made about sales assistants in stroud green rd</P> <P>people i know been in local cafes they arent complaining about anything just have a cuppa and go</P> <P>stick that in an article in an articile in your gurardian newspaper about how minimum wage workers in local shops are treated by their bosses when they get the sack after your skinny latte has been served in a way you dont like</P> <P>and i dont mean you miss annie in your guardian newspaper - its a metaphor for the type of people who sl-g off minimum wage cafe sales assistants with no regard for the consequences of what they do  </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>
  • Is it supposed to be slug or slag?
  • Thanks Andy and Dave from me too. 
  • By and large we have rubbed along pretty well on this forum with the odd hiccup now and then and it has been largely self moderating.  However, it's Andy and David's house, we are just guests. They don't have to put up with any of us. Sometimes they haven't and that is up to them I think. <br>
  • <p>I see I've been brought into this post.  My name in vain!  I might have posted some angry posts but I ain't no troll.  I have passions.  Not the torture garden ones! Did do a gig/performance there when I wasa fresh faced 20 year old, but S and m and rubber doesnt float my boat.  Left me a bit cold.  Each to their own.</p><p> </p><p>One last message, keep Stroud Green toff free.  Down with fake bakeries and jumpers over shirts. </p>
  • Just brilliant. There was a small protest going on across the city yesterday covering a whole range of civil rights and morality issues. Thank god chrisn4 stayed focused at home fighting for slabbers sg.org forum rights. Andy, we need a kettling plugin for vanilla. I'll get to it straight away, don't want anyone on here thinking we are getting soft.
  • Just like to say to other posters here - trolls go away if they are ignored. (You know who you are, trolls!)<br>It's hard when they're so inflammatory and angering, but it really does work, people.<br><br>
  • chrisn4 - you clearly have far too much time on your hands.   
  • <P>or as someone once said...<BR><FONT face=Verdana> I claim by ongoing right to occasionally take the serious piss out of pompous twerps, supercilious fuddy-duddies, brainwashed biddies, conceited berks, jumped-up arseholes, pretentious preachers, bigoted old bags, interfering twaddocks, meddlesome muppets, busybody bitches – and all or any of the small band of dedicated  curtain twitchers that have so entertained me and others these past few years..</FONT></P> <P> </P>
  • I know I should be ignoring you, but can you list everyone under your category headings for me.
  • <P>yes i can  ...</P> <P>i do label everyone on this forum...</P> <P>kreuzkav,in what i think of as a good piece of satirical writing,described what he describes as middle class lads that he had seen spilling out of local upmarket resturants as "jumper wearers".As he had spotted a local trend for middle class types to sling a jumper over their shoulders as  they left a posh resturant and went into the cold night air.</P> <P>so in my mind,inspired by kreuzkav's good writing,i label everyone on this forum as either a "jumper wearer" or a "non jumper wearer"</P> <P>bit snobby perhaps,but if you cant be a snob in england then what's the point in living in england,its half the fun surely...</P> <P>carry on</P> <P>   </P>
  • This sounds sinister.
  • <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><i>bit snobby perhaps,but if you cant be a snob in england then what's the point in living in england</i></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">It's obvious. You end up in England if you are <a href="">Too Dumb For New York City, Too Ugly For LA</a>.</span></div>
  • I have to take issue with Mr Jennings. I have spent time in both of those cities and find the residents to be neither more intelligent or pulchritudinous than the average Londoner. Had he been waxing lyrical about San Francisco however, I might agree.
  • An attempt to argue such a point only reinforces it.
Sign In or Register to comment.