Rules

[JohnW2]

And I've always believed that Rule 9 means don't keep quoting previous quoted text, i.e. don't end up with a big wodge of text which contains this sort of structure: ....

I don't think it's really meant to be as specific as that. I think it merely means what it says - namely that one should not quote more material than is "absolutely necessary". Interpretations of "absolutely necessary" will obviously vary, and what is 'necessary' (or, at least, desirable/helpful) will vary dramatically between posts.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't bother multi quoting me and asking for justification. I'm not playing you're silly oneupmanship games.

No, you're not.

You're just making accusations which you know you cannot justify.

 

[Johnmelad]

You're just making accusations which you know you cannot justify.

And you (as ever) are trying to justify the unjustifiable!

 

[RF Lighting]

Welcome to the DIYnot Forums!

Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules and enjoy the site!

1) Abusive or unhelpful posts are not welcome. This is a friendly site and we ask that everyone is treated with respect! Abusive or unhelpful posts are not welcome on this site and are always removed! Keep it civil!

an ignorant incompetent t**t should be offended

YOU T**T.

you have an IQ smaller than your shoe size.

You are a f**kwit of the first water.

P**s off and never come back.

the OP is an idiot, he is a t**t.

sometimes I want to abuse people

w****r

Moderator "You're a c**t".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You've dug up posts from two years ago just to prove that you are never ever wrong. Wow.

 

[skotl]

...and on and on and on and on...

Maybe, just maybe, b-a-s, you're the problem...?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not at all.

Unless, of course, you'd like to define "problem" as "not being prepared to sit idly by and not respond to allegations, accusations and attacks, and not say anything when mods behave unjustifiably".

 

[skotl]

There's clearly no reasoning with you. I'm surprised so many of us persist in trying to do so.

OK - I have better things to do this afternoon than play tit-for-tat with you, so enjoy the rest of your argument

 

[JohnW2]

Returning to the OP in this thread .... in numerical terms, locking of threads is a pretty/very rare occurrence in this forum, although it does happen from time to time. I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to BAS?

Kind Regards, John

 

[westie101]

I like these points from another forum.

4. Personal attacks on others are not allowed. To be mortally insulting without getting personal is an artform. Acquire the skill. If you can not counter an argument without attacking the person, then do not post here. Play the ball, not the player!

5. If you are attacked by someone, use the 'report to moderator' function and the post will be looked at by the moderators and actioned where necessary. Do not revenge like with like or you may well be treated the same way as the original attacker.

6. Ignore trolls. If you feed the troll you are just as guilty and may end up receiving the same treatment from the moderators.

and this point

Moderators are just ordinary people, with lives that extend well beyond the boundaries of this forum, who have volunteered (unpaid) to continue to moderate one of the more busy and difficult forums. Please try not to make their lives any more difficult than you have to, and be aware that they will not enter into any discussion about any decisions they make as there isn’t enough time in the day to do so. Neither will they explain or justify any such decisions for the same reason. You may think they should write and explain why they have done something, but just think of having to do that dozens of times a day or more. Not going to happen!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to BAS?

Almost always.

Unless, of course, you'd like to equate "related to" with ""not being prepared to sit idly by and not respond to allegations, accusations and attacks, and not say anything when mods behave unjustifiably"?

As I observed here, there was nothing about the topic on the list of tools which justified it being locked. Are we to have an unwritten Rule 12: Topics which Moderator 8 finds boring are not allowed? Should I have sat quietly by when he locked it? In your eyes, am I to be held responsible for it being locked? If this one gets locked am I also to be held responsible? I'm not the only one who posted in either of them.

In that other topic RF criticised me for digging up posts of his from 2 years ago and then here he has done exactly the same. Worse, in fact, as some are even older and he's used far more. Am I to be expected to say nothing about that hypocrisy?

If it is logical and rational for him to have objected to what I did then he should not have done what he did. So he is not being rational and logical in his dealings with me. He is being hypocritical. He is not treating me in the same way he expects to be treated.

And that I will not tolerate. I will not quietly put up with criticisms and attacks which people cannot justify, which are based on hypocrisy, bias and inconsistency. I will not quietly put up with people criticising me for things they imagine they can see on their screen.

So when I do object to hypocritical, biased, inconsistent, illogical, unreasoned, unjusifiable, non-evidential treatment of what I write don't think that you can blame me for being "associated" with it. Blame the people who think they should be allowed to get away with hypocritical, biased, inconsistent, illogical, unreasoned, unjusifiable, non-evidential treatment of what I write.

 

[JohnW2]

I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to BAS?

Almost always. ... Unless, of course, you'd like to equate "related to" with ""not being prepared to sit idly by and not respond to allegations, accusations and attacks, and not say anything when mods behave unjustifiably"?

That is IMO a ridiculous "Unless, of course...". I will rephrase my question ....

I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to exchanges between BAS and one or more others?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There's clearly no reasoning with you. I'm surprised so many of us persist in trying to do so.

But you aren't.

Reasoning that is.

You are not using reason and logic.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to exchanges between BAS and one or more others?

I wonder what your motive is for asking that, why you're so concerned, and why you're not asking "I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to exchanges between BAS and one or more others which were initiated by him"?

 

[JohnW2]

I was wondering whether anyone can recall any occasion on which a thread was locked for reasons unrelated to exchanges between BAS and one or more others?

I wonder what your motive is for asking that, why you're so concerned ...

Who said I was concerned? As I said, I was just wondering.

Kind Regards, John