MODS - Time for NSC to rejoice in how GREAT they are.

[BN9 BHA]

Which Mod edited my thread title and then deleted it?
First of all: It wasn't unfounded.
Secondly: Why not be big enough to tell me why? Via PM if necessary.

I PM'd another mod to explain what was going on.
Grow some balls, whoever you are.

But where was your proof that David Jason was in trouble?

 

[El Presidente]

I honestly think we should use some of the surplus advertising revenue for an NSC hooker fund.

We already do.

We've pencilled you in for November BTW

 

[TSB]

But where was your proof that David Jason was in trouble?

Sorry, I forgot. You need definitive proof to post something on a messageboard.
NSC would be an extremely dull place if everything posted had to be verified.
I did not say he was in trouble.

 

[Acker79]

Sorry, I forgot. You need definitive proof to post something on a messageboard.
NSC would be an extremely dull place if everything posted had to be verified.
I did not say he was in trouble.

Not everything has to be verified. But things that can get the site and/or posters in trouble (such as claims suggesting involvement in particularly nasty crimes) really should be.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Sorry, I forgot. You need definitive proof to post something on a messageboard.
NSC would be an extremely dull place if everything posted had to be verified.
I did not say he was in trouble.

I think you have far too much time on your hands.

 

[TSB]

Not everything has to be verified. But things that can get the site and/or posters in trouble (such as claims suggesting involvement in particularly nasty crimes) really should be.

I was extremely careful with what I put and to have it labeled as 'unfounded' by someone who does not have the faintest clue whether it is or is not true has irked me somewhat. There was nothing libellous or inflamatory.
Do I not deserve a least a message explaining why it was removed? Looks pretty cowardly to me.

I think you have far too much time on your hands.

That I can't argue about.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I was extremely careful with what I put and to have it labeled as 'unfounded' by someone who does not have the faintest clue whether it is or is not true has irked me somewhat. There was nothing libellous or inflamatory.
Do I not deserve a least a message explaining why it was removed? Looks pretty cowardly to me.



That I can't argue about.

Perhaps it was more to do with the posts that followed than yours? There was at least one I was VERY uncomfortable with.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I was extremely careful with what I put and to have it labeled as 'unfounded' by someone who does not have the faintest clue whether it is or is not true has irked me somewhat. There was nothing libellous or inflamatory.
Do I not deserve a least a message explaining why it was removed? Looks pretty cowardly to me.
That I can't argue about.

Actually you lied - first you said it was on Twitter and then that it wasn't online - you can't have it both ways. Regardless, it was tasteless and boarding libel. You're complaining that the mods should have sent you a message as to why it was removed - would you be happy sending a message to David Jason explaining your implications ?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Which Mod edited my thread title and then deleted it?
First of all: It wasn't unfounded.
Secondly: Why not be big enough to tell me why? Via PM if necessary.

I PM'd another mod to explain what was going on.
Grow some balls, whoever you are.

I deleted your thread,and I'm quite happy with my balls, thanks.

Unless you have something to back up what you wrote, then you should be embarrassed and ashamed of what you posted, and should be grateful that it was removed.

You posted an unfounded rumour, linking someone to a criminal enquiry into vile acts.

Then you edited your post to add the word 'allegedly'. Like that makes a difference.

When asked where your rumour came from, you replied 'twitter'.

Then a few minutes later you declared that there was nothing about it 'anywhere on line'.

Then declined to answer muliple enquiries about where you actually came across this gossip.

Your thread was reported to the mods by concerned posters.

If you can't see why a moderator of ANY forum would be uncomfortable with that thread, then I am gobsmacked.

 

[TSB]

Actually you lied - first you said it was on Twitter and then that it wasn't online - you can't have it both ways. Regardless, it was tasteless and boarding libel. You're complaining that the mods should have sent you a message as to why it was removed - would you be happy sending a message to David Jason explaining your implications ?

True. It wasn't twitter but I wasn't going to be revealing my source, was I.
Some things in life are tasteless. Should the media be ashamed for reporting on murders?
If it was libellous, someone would have stated so.
I think David is a bit busy at the moment...

 

[Acker79]

I was extremely careful with what I put and to have it labeled as 'unfounded' by someone who does not have the faintest clue whether it is or is not true has irked me somewhat. There was nothing libellous or inflamatory.
Do I not deserve a least a message explaining why it was removed? Looks pretty cowardly to me.

What you put was only going to be taken one way. If you can't see that, I'm not sure a mod explaining the decision would make any difference.

 

[TSB]

I deleted your thread,and I'm quite happy with my balls, thanks.

Unless you have something to back up what you wrote, then you should be embarrassed and ashamed of what you posted, and should be grateful that it was removed.

You posted an unfounded rumour, linking someone to a criminal enquiry into vile acts.

Then you edited your post to add the word 'allegedly'. Like that makes a difference.

When asked where your rumour came from, you replied 'twitter'.

Then a few minutes later you declared that there was nothing about it 'anywhere on line'.

Then declined to answer muliple enquiries about where you actually came across this gossip.

Your thread was reported to the mods by concerned posters.

If you can't see why a moderator of ANY forum would be uncomfortable with that thread, then I am gobsmacked.

Cheers for explaining.
It wasn't unfounded.
I have plenty to back up what I wrote, thank you.
Shall now STFU about it as I have what I wanted.

@Guiness Boy - Gotcha. Understand that completely.

 

[martyn20]

Cheers for explaining.
It wasn't unfounded.
I have plenty to back up what I wrote, thank you.
Shall now STFU about it as I have what I wanted.

@Guiness Boy - Gotcha. Understand that completely.

So is there anything anywhere we can see confirming this, clearly you would not have been stupid enough to post something like this with absolutely nothing visible to back it up?

 

[cjd]

Having looked at "David Jason rumours"..........he does appear to have some rather odd people as his 'friends'.

 

[TSB]

So is there anything anywhere we can see confirming this, clearly you would not have been stupid enough to post something like this with absolutely nothing visible to back it up?

There is nothing visible to back it up. Not recently, anyway.
Besides: this thread isn't about that. It's about Mods. Mine was deleted so let's leave the subject there.

 

[Ernest]

Having looked at "David Jason rumours"..........he does appear to have some rather odd people as his 'friends'.

Does seem to be a bit of smoke about him