More uselessness from DBC

[HeliX]

I'd make a shite mod, but here's my barometer, free of charge.

I've had a lot of heated debates with a lot of posters on here. Many I still do, frequently. But I'd happily go for a beer or a glass of wine with basically any of you.

Would I go for a pint with Reportage behaving how they were earlier? Not a chance.

[Steady Eddie]

Just now, HeliX said:

Never attribute to malice...

I’ve not used the word malice. But to me it’s clear what’s happened. They simply removed posts because they didn’t like them. Not because they were libelous or anything else. And that’s editing. 

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

So would I.  I also think that, in the main, the standard of argument is more intelligent and supported with real research, but I think it's days are numbered, particularly with the influx of shouty opinioneers. 

Sad, but I suppose everything has its life cycle. 

 

 

 Well...

 

[Gladys]

Just now, HeliX said:

I'd make a shite mod, but here's my barometer, free of charge.

I've had a lot of heated debates with a lot of posters on here. Many I still do, frequently. But I'd happily go for a beer or a glass of wine with basically any of you.

Would I go for a pint with Reportage behaving how they were earlier? Not a chance.

Not a bad barometer. 

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

I'd make a shite mod, but here's my barometer, free of charge.

I've had a lot of heated debates with a lot of posters on here. Many I still do, frequently. But I'd happily go for a beer or a glass of wine with basically any of you.

Would I go for a pint with Reportage behaving how they were earlier? Not a chance.

I'll challenge you to the TT challenge. It doesn't involve bikes but twenty shots of tequila and two fifty quid notes.

[Amadeus]

13 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

Hi Amadeus,

yes, you're right. I don't recognise the "TJ saga". 

You've challenged me to explain to you why you should put up with abusive personal messages and other things and keep this place running.

Why you should keep this place running: because you see value in providing another, unique channel of Manx public opinion to the social and political narrative. Social media is after all a form of media, through which an (albeit limited) element of the public can air its opinions.

Why you should tolerate abusive messages for free: because if you see value in my first argument - providing a channel for social and political discourse - then you are obliged to listen, and give space to all comers because you never know which one of the, however unhinged sounding is the next Snowden, Gallileo Gallilei (Bertholt Brecht unsw.)  or Tesla (adjusting national expectations for Hilary, TE Brown, Sam Barks, etc.)

Ah yes, because I support free speech I should have to endure abuse. Sure thing. Please just stop with your pseudo intellectual bullshit.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, Steady Eddie said:

I’ve not used the word malice. But to me it’s clear what’s happened. They simply removed posts because they didn’t like them. Not because they were libelous or anything else. And that’s editing. 

Accident sounds more plausible than some sort of grand ManxForums conspiracy to cover up the fact that at a meeting called to object to changes to the bin collection schedule in Douglas there were attendees who didn't like the changes to the bin collection schedule in Douglas.

I mean honestly it looked ridiculous even typing.

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I'll challenge you to the TT challenge. It doesn't involve bikes but twenty shots of tequila and two fifty quid notes.

I am partial to a tequila, but not twenty of them.

[NoTailT]

4 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

Ah yes, because I support free speech I should have to endure abuse. Sure thing. Please just stop with your pseudo intellectual bullshit.

There's a fine balance. Did Reportage go too far? Yes. We all think that. But he was getting riled up by some - I won't name names - by making him/her seem like a woke minority loser. Reading between posts, that how it seemed.

Abuse? Not acceptable. But you're an elected official and what comes with that is a degree of - sometimes not very nice - critique and scrutiny. Be judged in how you control and respond to it.

Edited December 15, 2022 by NoTailT

[NoTailT]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

I am partial to a tequila, but not twenty of them.

Ten are yours. Ten are mine. One fifty is mine, one is yours. Get my drift...

[Gladys]

19 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

There's a fine balance. Did Reportage go too far? Yes. We all think that. But he was getting riled up by some - I won't name names - by making him/her seem like a woke minority loser. Reading between posts, that how it seemed.

Abuse? Not acceptable. But you're an elected official and what comes with that is a degree of - sometimes not very nice - critique and scrutiny. Be judged in how you control and respond to it.

Agree to a point, but he  did make substantiated claims and then called those who pointed out his mistake liars.  You just cannot deal with that kind of mindset reasonably. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Gladys

[Steady Eddie]

34 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Agree to a point, but he  did make substantiated claims and then called those who pointed out his mistake liars.  You just cannot deal with that kind of mindset reasonably. 

I’m running from memory now but the unsubstantiated claims seemed to be a bit tenuous relative to where the Douglas and Braddan boundary actually is (it is somewhere in Saddlestone / Vicarage Road) when they said Wells lived in Braddan and something about Amadeus voting for his own proposal. Neither seemed that far fetched to me. He also mentioned some bloke in the audience being a Council stodge and we happen to have mutual Facebook friends and he is very clearly friends with just about every person sitting on Douglas council from what I can see. So again not very far fetched would be my gut feeling. 

[John Wright]

6 hours ago, Asthehills said:

How do you know what opportunities he was given if you are no longer a mod?

I was a mod when Newsdesk was sending me offensive PM’s, he was given multiple opportunities before being banned.

Edited December 15, 2022 by John Wright

[Amadeus]

7 hours ago, NoTailT said:

There's a fine balance. Did Reportage go too far? Yes. We all think that. But he was getting riled up by some - I won't name names - by making him/her seem like a woke minority loser. Reading between posts, that how it seemed.

Abuse? Not acceptable. But you're an elected official and what comes with that is a degree of - sometimes not very nice - critique and scrutiny. Be judged in how you control and respond to it.

Am I typing in German or something? This isn’t about some bins or me being a councillor. This is about one individual with a long history of abusing this forum. Of creating countless accounts and acting in ways no mod or admin should have to put up with. What part of that is so hard to understand and why would anyone defend a person and actions that have significant negative impacts on the people running this place? In what world is that ok? 

[wrighty]

What did I miss?