-
-
To think a p iss poor, long ball merchant clown for a manager from Bristol could be the cause of such disharmony
Comment
-
Seemed to have strayed from the original post which is a shame as we as fans should feel ok about the team at the present time which is not something we could say in the past 6 or 7 years.Comment
-
nsa/cia spy on this..............┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐Comment
-
into the murky mind of pinkie/bobbydunc/daveqpr we go..................................nsa/cia spy on this..............┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐Comment
-
-
Comment
-
You really are, youve got some neck on you like a giraffe, youve read myus post have you not, its better just leaving this now, you undeleted a post of mine to then ban me which i knew about, you tried lying or sticking up for youre extremely quiet mate stanley who did edit my post, not to mention you and stan demanding to myu i stay banned for life, ultimatuming him, now best leave this now.Comment
-
Like an episode of Dallas this.Comment
-
This was an alternate account set up by Bobby Dunc. Reason he set up another account, was to find out why he couldn't post on his original.
After bobby was banned, his user title was changed to make it look as if he wasn't banned.
Then the new account received the same treatment.
For the record, checking new sign ups is no longer as easy as it used to be thanks to many people now using VPN's/Proxies. Therefore, we must be 100% certain before we ban.
The question you should be asking, is why would an admin or mod ban an account and then change the user title if they were certain this user was someone else?
I know of at least 2 people on a personal level who were banned for being Pinkie, and I do not know Pinkie on a personal level.
How would you feel if you was on the receiving end of such treatment?
As stated previously, I am not at liberty to disclose everything that has happened, I also don't believe for one second that this issue is helping the forum.
Prior to all of this, I also got along great with BrightonR and classed him as a decent guy who worked tirelessly for the benefit of the forum, but I truly believe his obsession with Pinkie this past summer, truly clouded his judgement.Minds Are Like Parachutes.
Work Best When Open...
@Nowt2SeeHereComment
-
-
MYU. First of all thank you for the kind words. But once again, and I really don’t mean to cause you any further grief over this, but there are a few things in your previous post that are not quite right. It may have been the passage of time that’s clouded the issue, but the detail really is quite crucial.
Firstly, I did un-delete one of Pinkie’s posts, perfectly happy to admit that and have been all along. Quite why you think it was an attempt to get him banned I’ve no idea, as I along with others, had consistently stated that we don’t want to ban anybody. All we wanted was for him to apologise for wrongful accusations that he had made.
When I did un-delete that post, it was simply to point out to him, not you, that he was still, despite assurances to the contrary, of the impression that one of either Stanley or myself had done something underhand, which as you know, we hadn’t. Just how many more times does this need to be said? Things were clearly made worse when Fraggy couldn’t seem to wait to tell him that one of us had done as he was led to believe we had, despite that not being the case at all. And in fairness to Fraggy, he too cleared that part up ages ago, although it seems to have been largely ignored.
You now have the perfect opportunity to remind Pinkie of that and ask him to apologise, although I doubt he is capable.
You also state that Pinkie policed himself and said that was good to see. And that he knew he’d got it wrong. Well, I’d happily agree, if only PM after PM, some of which I was happy to share with everyone in the team, proved that he was even more convinced we had done something underhand. The tone of those left no doubt. That is why I believed then and still do now, that the correct thing for you to do was keep him banned until such time as he apologised for making those assertions, even if he thought he may have had good reason too. Simply to prove that no member can be allowed to throw around false claims against others, unchallenged. I can certainly see why Pinkie thought we had done that, given the misinformation that had been presented to him. But surely, once that had been clarified and that no such thing had happened, it would have been reasonable for him to have said sorry.
Up until this matter, you know full well you have had my unstinting support over many years, for what you were trying to do here. As I have now said again today, albeit in less than pleasant terms this time, I think you should have backed up those that had helped you over many years. And not been persuaded to do otherwise by those with lesser standards. But as I have said before, it’s your site so you can do what you want.
I’m purposely keeping the others out of this, as dragging them all into it won’t help or solve anything.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment