You mean like it was kept civil on another thread where a Site Admin launched a blatant personal attack which was left for majority of the evening until someone waved it under your nose for attention? Despite the Site Admin concerned being told to remove it, it’s still there now with only the name of the person it was aimed at removed. The remark is still blatant and anyone with an ounce of sense can see straight through it, who it’s aimed at and still constitutes as a personal attack by the rule book.
I don’t give a toss who says what to me; words are meaningless. What I don’t like is the fact that time after time certain members get away with posting blatant attacks on others without the owner’s so much as batting an eyelid, whereas others only need to move their lips and whoooooooooooosh that’s it, tippex comes out, yellow cards, red cards, alarm bells, PM’s warning of a ban etc and that’s it, the thread’s gone and replaced with “[zb] personal attack”.
Some consistency would be a good start or shall I assume free rein to retaliate?
Hang on while I go and get my violin, you are so hard done by - You instigate alot of the arguments here, then walk away as if nothing is ever your fault. Get real Rob.
smcaul:
Suddenly everyone loses their sense of humours…
KitKat:
Any idiot can do it m8
Ah, but you didn’t.
The difference here is the selective quoting you’ve used to keep stirring it.
KitKat’s original quote included a laughing ‘smilie’ (which is used to replace the face expressions you would get from talking to some one in person!), however, you chose not to include that, thus changing the emphasis.
I don’t really believe I locking or pulling topics to easy but i’m glad the original of this has been.
See how I included this ’ ’ ? It means I am angry! (About the on-going stirring!)
Just so you’re aware folks…this thread will be treated in exactly the same way as the other…in that if the Mods consider it has gone beyond a joke and into a slanging match, it will be pulled.
Bear in mind that’ll mean a Formal Warning for anyone who uses Personal Attack on this thread who also did in the original.
Rob K:
You mean like it was kept civil on another thread where a Site Admin launched a blatant personal attack which was left for majority of the evening until someone waved it under your nose for attention? Despite the Site Admin concerned being told to remove it, it’s still there now with only the name of the person it was aimed at removed. The remark is still blatant and anyone with an ounce of sense can see straight through it, who it’s aimed at and still constitutes as a personal attack by the rule book.
As I told you over and over again at the time, I personally was OFF DUTY that night. The fact that you kept hassling me about it was the equivalent of your TM ringing you up in your OFF DUTY time. As it was, that night off went down the pan…so you’ll excuse me if in this instance my sympathy level was the same as you would have given your TM above (If you see the analogy.)
In other words, in this case you are blaming the wrong person.
Contrary to popular belief, even Rikki and I are allowed to a) take time off and b) use the Forums and Chatroom for fun during that time off.
smcaul:
Suddenly everyone loses their sense of humours…
KitKat:
Any idiot can do it m8
Ah, but you didn’t.
The difference here is the selective quoting you’ve used to keep stirring it.
KitKat’s original quote included a laughing ‘smilie’ (which is used to replace the face expressions you would get from talking to some one in person!), however, you chose not to include that, thus changing the emphasis.
I don’t really believe I locking or pulling topics to easy but i’m glad the original of this has been.
See how I included this ’ ’ ? It means I am angry! (About the on-going stirring!)
I think you will find that the smiley was left out when you cut and paste rather then using the quote button, and if it had been selective then I would have left out the “M8” bit, so it would have read “Any idiot can do it”, but I did not, there fore the emphisis remained the same.
And quite why you are angry is beyond my comprhension, There was no ongoing stirring, contrary to others belief, I posted something that got removed to lighten the mood, Lucy felt it might antaganise and so editied it, others then made similar inflamatory remarks and I posted the above - nothing wrong with it in my view, perhaps you need to look beyond “smiley’s” and read the content/backgrounds of the thread. (thought I would give you the full set so you can decide how the post was written, and in what context it was made)
You mean like it was kept civil on another thread where a Site Admin launched a blatant personal attack which was left for majority of the evening until someone waved it under your nose for attention? Despite the Site Admin concerned being told to remove it, it’s still there now with only the name of the person it was aimed at removed. The remark is still blatant and anyone with an ounce of sense can see straight through it, who it’s aimed at and still constitutes as a personal attack by the rule book.
(thought I would give you the full set so you can decide how the post was written, and in what context it was made)