# Bye bye



## RogerS (21 Apr 2010)

That's it. I thought the running of the site had matured. It hasn't. I'm checking out.

Enjoy your woodworking.


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

It's a shame to see you go Roger - what happened?


----------



## Max Power (21 Apr 2010)

:? please tell me this is a joke


----------



## wizer (21 Apr 2010)

This one's strange. I haven't seen you beef with anyone lately? Explain Roger.


----------



## 9fingers (21 Apr 2010)

You cannot be serious Roger :?: 

Maybe reconsider?

Bob


----------



## Max Power (21 Apr 2010)

The worlds gone mad :shock: We are doomed I say doomed 8-[ 8-[


----------



## motownmartin (21 Apr 2010)

It's the Volcanic ash :shock:


----------



## 9fingers (21 Apr 2010)

Here is why:-

http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewt ... =12&t=4487

I'll not pass comment - just in case.

Bob


----------



## wizer (21 Apr 2010)

hmm in which case I'm glad it was removed. This is the sort of thread that will end very badly and there is a very specific rule that clearly states no political debates. I come here to get away from that b*ll*x


----------



## Max Power (21 Apr 2010)

Thanks Bob, hopefully Roger will think better of it in the cold light of day.It would be a real shame if he did go


----------



## Mike.C (21 Apr 2010)

All I can say is that it must be something very bad for a laid back member like Roger to think of leaving. Like the other's I really do hope that you change your mind.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Kalimna (21 Apr 2010)

Ive not been on this forum long enough to really know many of the members here, but I have to agree with the above comments...

Adam


----------



## big soft moose (22 Apr 2010)

9fingers":1i4tvzmz said:


> Here is why:-
> 
> http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewt ... =12&t=4487
> 
> ...



I notice its gone from over there too now, whatever it was

still if its political its clearly against the rules and i agree with tom - there are loads of places on the net you can discuss politics to your hearts content - why chose a woodwork forum ?

also imo we are getting too many of these bye, i'm going, no really i am threads - if you are so sensitive that you want to quit over something like that then fine quit , but starting threads about your going to me smacks of ego stroking in the hope that loads of people will say no, dont go we love you....


----------



## Max Power (22 Apr 2010)

We all do and say things in the spur of the moment BSM that given the benefit of hindsight we probably wouldn't have done. Would be a real shame if a member of Rogers long standing felt compelled to follow up on his hasty decision because of negative comments. Maybe best if we all leave Roger to come to his senses as the forum is the ultimate loser when any member leaves  Maybe one of the mods could freeze/remove this topic, as little good can come from dissecting it.


----------



## Chems (22 Apr 2010)

I'll buck the trend, go and take your crying with you.

An I thought this was a community of men! Whats this, like the 5th one in the last couple of months. 

I saw similar behaviour to this today, we had a school visit from some pre-schoolers ages 3-5 and one of them lost his sun hat and his screaming and crying actually was just like this. 

I'm sure, I don't quite know how but we will be able to pull ourselves together and get by without you an the rest of your kind, somehow.


----------



## Doctor (22 Apr 2010)

Chems":3g7vxjdg said:


> get by without you an the rest of your kind, somehow.



What kind is that then, Roger always seemed a decent chap to me, obviously you know better.
I shall call you saint chems from now on your holiness.


----------



## BradNaylor (22 Apr 2010)

To be fair Doc, Chems posted his comments at half past two in the morning. I suspect that he'd just got in after a full evening!


Are these the words of a sober man?



> I'm sure, I don't quite know how but we will be able to pull ourselves together and get by without you an the rest of your kind, somehow.



:lol:


----------



## studders (22 Apr 2010)

BradNaylor":6mk9h2oq said:


> Are these the words of a sober man?



Sober or otherwise they are foolish and, ironically, immature.


----------



## Doug B (22 Apr 2010)

At least posting a thread when you`ve decided to leave lets others know what`s upset you.

Interestingly in this case over active mod-ing, whilst in a wicketkeepers case under active mod-ing.... in the eyes of the leavers..... Once again proving you can`t please all of the people all of the time.


Imho i think the forum has lost it`s way a little, with too may over opinionated posters, which has been the reason for my lack of activity on here, though i wont be posting an "I`m leaving thread"................... well not just yet. :lol:


----------



## Gary (22 Apr 2010)

Makes no odds what's said now.

Roger has gone so he won't read any of it. :lol:


----------



## kasandrich (22 Apr 2010)

Obviously all traces of whatever it was have gone including the threadon another forum, but I cannot understand how a thread on another forum can cause upset on this forum and someone leaving.

I have a lot of experience of forums from both sides of the fence and sometimes you need to be a bit thick skinned, as a moderator or administrator, sometimes the only course of action is to delete an entire thread, even if that means blatting everything that someone you agree with has to say.

At the end of the day as Chems said, if maybe a little undelicately, this forum is bigger than any individual on here, and the loss of any individual/s is not really going to affect the operation of the forums. So if the dramatic leavings we have seen are an attempt at throwing the forums into turmoil, forget it, it isn't going to happen, so you may as well thicken up your skin a bit, accept that things are not always going to be perfectly in alignment with the way you would like them, and stick around and enjoy.


----------



## Philly (22 Apr 2010)

kasandrich":9kd888n3 said:


> Obviously all traces of whatever it was have gone including the threadon another forum, but I cannot understand how a thread on another forum can cause upset on this forum and someone leaving.
> 
> I have a lot of experience of forums from both sides of the fence and sometimes you need to be a bit thick skinned, as a moderator or administrator, sometimes the only course of action is to delete an entire thread, even if that means blatting everything that someone you agree with has to say.
> 
> At the end of the day as Chems said, if maybe a little undelicately, this forum is bigger than any individual on here, and the loss of any individual/s is not really going to affect the operation of the forums. So if the dramatic leavings we have seen are an attempt at throwing the forums into turmoil, forget it, it isn't going to happen, so you may as well thicken up your skin a bit, accept that things are not always going to be perfectly in alignment with the way you would like them, and stick around and enjoy.





Well said!
Philly =D>


----------



## Dibs-h (22 Apr 2010)

Shame (Roger had a lot to contribute & had done so)- but as with all things, change is inevitable.

Wish you all the best! 

(Roger that is, not the rest of you - I ain't going! :wink


----------



## matt (22 Apr 2010)

kasandrich":3rw4a597 said:


> At the end of the day as Chems said, if maybe a little undelicately, this forum is bigger than any individual on here...



And, let's face it, the forum SHOULD be trivial in the grand scheme of a persons daily life but herein lies the problem for some methinks. I've no intention of offending or upsetting anyone but, if in expressing myself, I happen to do so I really can't fathom a member getting at all screwed up about it?! However, I have noted the gravity that some associate with this place and temper my posts accordingly (despite not really understnding why someone would get so bent out of shape).


----------



## big soft moose (22 Apr 2010)

studders":2kl0398h said:


> BradNaylor":2kl0398h said:
> 
> 
> > Are these the words of a sober man?
> ...



while chems was somewhat undiplomatic maybe i think that might be a little harsh - I too have very little time for anyone throwing their teddies out of their pram because of something the moderators have or havent done

at the end of the day they run the site, and give their time for free to do it, so surely the rest of should help them by keeping our posting inside the rules and not having tantrums if they delete things that stray outside of those boundaries.

anyway probably a nuff has been said on this, roger will either leave for good or come back of his own accord , and either way i'm sure the site will go on with or without his contribution.


----------



## head clansman (22 Apr 2010)

hi 

It's all assumption why roger decided to leave so far , what's happened :?: i don't know, do any of us really know :?: sober drunk :?: , decision of the moment , or not it's his decision something has happened thats for sure to which only roger really knows why. however, Roger good luck to you , we had some bad and good comments to each other in some of the original post we shared comments in , but that don't mean i am going to leave, nor should you. I'm sure you have made as many friends here as I have. KEEP SMILING.     . hc


----------



## Philly (22 Apr 2010)

Folks
Just to clear the air, I think we all know the policy on politics on this forum. Roger started a thread last night asking which political party you will be voting for - needless to say this was pulled. I find it hard to believe Roger was surprised at this.
Philly


----------



## Max Power (22 Apr 2010)

To be fair Roger did it as a poll where people could vote anonymously. But I do agree politics should be kept off the forum (unless every one agrees with me of course :lol: )


----------



## RogerS (22 Apr 2010)

Thank you one and all for your kind words.

For clarification.....

Yes.. I did create a straw poll asking, anonymously, which party people were voting for. We have a good cross-section of the populus and so I thought that it would have been interesting to get a feel at this particular time especially as the outcome is very much in the air.

As far as politics go, I specifically asked in the thread for no comments . Indeed, I even went so far as to ask that my initiating post was the only one in the thread to avoid debate and dissent. 

Yes..we have a 'no politics' rule but surely that relates to discussion. Not a bloody straw poll. I would have thought that whichever mod removed it would have treated us as adults and let the poll run. 

That's it.


----------



## head clansman (22 Apr 2010)

hi 


politics hmm, normally a heated subject , but,take a look at all the post here that get heated from time to time on the many other forums here and end up locked for what ever reason , IMHO if it was a poll i see no problem with that nor do i really see any problem with politics being discussed on the general chat forum ( freedom of speech and all that ) after all it does say there 



> (For (non-woodworking related topics) - yes I know it's a scary thought but there is a life outside woodworking



doesn't that cover all subject then including politics :?: if it doesn't then perhaps that statement should be altered maybe the sooner the better. hc


----------



## wizer (22 Apr 2010)

Thing is. What Roger is asking for is possible. A Poll with no comments. But without input from the owner, things like this can't happen for our members.


----------



## Chems (22 Apr 2010)

RogerS":ng9tdm1o said:


> Thank you one and all for your kind words.
> 
> For clarification.....
> 
> ...



Ha knew you hadn't left really! Welcome back Roger, may your stay be long and happy, all is forgiven!


----------



## Max Power (22 Apr 2010)

Ill second that Roger, welcome back ccasion5:


----------



## head clansman (22 Apr 2010)

hi tom 

*wizer wrote*




> But without input from the owner, things like this can't happen for our members.



fair comment tom . hc


----------



## ByronBlack (22 Apr 2010)

Don't see a problem with a poll, if there was no discussion being encouraged. Either way Roger, don't let that put you off, it will be a shame to see you go over something like that - I'm sure most of us realise that it was a harsh decision.

My other gripe about the politics thing is almost everything can relate to politics in one way or another, so a blanket ban seems a bit agricultural, but then again this forum isn't a democracy so there seems little point in debating it.

Either way, it's pretty trivial and it would be great if we could all just move on and carry on discussing woodworking and the like, and don't let things like this blow up too much, life is too short.


----------



## StevieB (22 Apr 2010)

Round and round and round we go.....

Asking for no comments is all well and good, but someone will leave them. Then someone will respond. Then it snowballs and so on. Do we really believe that there would have been no comments at all?! If a thread is locked people moan, if its left other people moan, threads get sidetracked, diverted and hijacked all the time, quite often not intentionally, sometimes out of mischief. 

Up to you how you respond to mods actions on a thread you created, but expecting everyone to abide by a requested action in post 1 of any thread is probably unrealistic.

Steve


----------



## big soft moose (22 Apr 2010)

StevieB":qfitd76w said:


> Round and round and round we go.....
> 
> Asking for no comments is all well and good, but someone will leave them. Then someone will respond. Then it snowballs and so on. Do we really believe that there would have been no comments at all?! If a thread is locked people moan, if its left other people moan, threads get sidetracked, diverted and hijacked all the time, quite often not intentionally, sometimes out of mischief.



exactly - thus creating more work unecessarily for the moderator team.

Like i said before there are ample places on the internet where politics can be discussed and such polls created - why discuss or poll on a woodwork form (and why run a poll at all if you arent interested in discussing the results)

and as to the idea that our mods have overreacted, you will note that the thread has also been pulled on the "other side" , strange that :roll:

And the answer to "how am i going to vote" is that i am going to put an X in a box next to the party I favour  - beyond that it is no ones business but my own, and in my view not a suitable topic for this or any other non politics forum.

and lastly the fact that roger is watching this thread and may or may not have left, imo bears out what i was saying about goodbye threads.


----------



## Mike.C (22 Apr 2010)

StevieB":ec19r8sl said:


> Round and round and round we go.....
> 
> Asking for no comments is all well and good, but someone will leave them. Then someone will respond. Then it snowballs and so on. Do we really believe that there would have been no comments at all?! If a thread is locked people moan, if its left other people moan, threads get sidetracked, diverted and hijacked all the time, quite often not intentionally, sometimes out of mischief.
> 
> ...



Hi Steve, I don't see it as unrealistic at all. If an OP explains that he would be interested to see how a cross selection of the populous are going to vote, but if a discussion about politics starts it will see the mod's removing the thread, and so except for voting he is asking everyone not to leave any comments, I am sure we could refrain from commenting. Now that we have a three horse race (if he does not mess it up tonight) I for one would have been interested in seeing how the vote is going to go.

But the mod's, who do a thankless job, have spoken and we have to respect that.

Welcome back Roger.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## woodbloke (22 Apr 2010)

Philly":1g86fsj1 said:


> Folks
> Just to clear the air, I think we all know the policy on politics on this forum. Roger started a thread last night asking which political party you will be voting for - needless to say this was pulled. I find it hard to believe Roger was surprised at this.
> Philly


Ah...the thick plottens. Many years ago I foolishly   belonged to an organization that involved _'building tools' _:wink: where *any* discussion on politics or religion was strictly banned. 'Twas a rule and all, the great and the good, stuck to it rigourously.

Sorry to see you go Rog but in my view at least, the mod's decision was the correct one - Rob


----------



## big soft moose (22 Apr 2010)

The rules also say this



charley":ce1cds8u said:


> Whilst the moderators will always seek to act impartially and consistently in the best interests of the forum, there will inevitably be times when their action does not meet with unanimous approval amongst the membership...
> 
> ...Any individual who feels aggrieved by the actions of a moderator should pursue the matter privately with that moderator...
> 
> ...Likewise, discussions regarding moderator actions are not permitted on the forum.



so may be we have all said enough


----------



## barkwindjammer (22 Apr 2010)

just to carry this forward a little if I may, wouldn't it be 'really' interesting if the Mod who deemed it necessary to 'pull' the thread was transparent and explained his/her reason for doing so, after all there seems to be a split within this topic as to whether this was 'just', personaly I cant find any reasonable cause, and I'm a barrister, aren't Mods accountable ?


----------



## matt (22 Apr 2010)

So, let's get this straight:
Start a politics related thread and include an arbitrary caveat to mitigate application of the rules as they are perceived. 
Perception of rules was wrong as demonstrated by a mod applying the rules. 

I don't get the cause of departure? Is it an unabatable desire to conduct a political poll or an overwhelming discontent with mods applying the rules?


----------



## beech1948 (22 Apr 2010)

Best thing to say is simply - Goodbye-have a good life.

RogerS does/has added value to the site.

I find these Bye-Bye messages to be in poor taste, weak and seemingly seeking others to say no-don't -go. 

I have found myself disagreeing intensely with RogerS's attitude and approach but he is entitled to have these.

Now lets move on to some woodwork.

Alan


----------



## Karl (22 Apr 2010)

barkwindjammer":19et85d7 said:


> just to carry this forward a little if I may, wouldn't it be 'really' interesting if the Mod who deemed it necessary to 'pull' the thread was transparent and explained his/her reason for doing so, after all there seems to be a split within this topic as to whether this was 'just', personaly I cant find any reasonable cause, and I'm a barrister, aren't Mods accountable ?



I assume it was Philly, and his explanation is given in his earlier post.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## TrimTheKing (22 Apr 2010)

Karl":2rutam2a said:


> barkwindjammer":2rutam2a said:
> 
> 
> > just to carry this forward a little if I may, wouldn't it be 'really' interesting if the Mod who deemed it necessary to 'pull' the thread was transparent and explained his/her reason for doing so, after all there seems to be a split within this topic as to whether this was 'just', personaly I cant find any reasonable cause, and I'm a barrister, aren't Mods accountable ?
> ...


I saw that and I'm not even a Barrister.

Or did he mean to say Barista?


----------



## Doctor (22 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":1ihjipe9 said:


> while chems was somewhat undiplomatic maybe i think that might be a little harsh - I too have very little time for anyone throwing their teddies out of their pram because of something the moderators have or havent done


 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I doubt he can throw them as far as you.


----------



## Doctor (22 Apr 2010)

Chems":ys90ksi1 said:


> RogerS":ys90ksi1 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you one and all for your kind words.
> ...



Make your mind up, Bu*#*r off yesterday, welcome back old mucker today :?


----------



## Max Power (22 Apr 2010)

Why foolishly woodbloke ? Never did anyone any harm being on the square :wink:


----------



## Argee (22 Apr 2010)

Off we go in yet *another *unwise direction - I'll be surprised if this doesn't end in tears. more airborne teddies, locked thread yet again.

Ray


----------



## TrimTheKing (22 Apr 2010)

Argee":3rquzhr8 said:


> Off we go in yet *another *unwise direction - I'll be surprised if this doesn't end in tears. more airborne teddies, locked thread yet again.
> 
> Ray


???

What direction? People taking the wee wee out of each other? We're all big boys (and a couple of girls) and if we can't take a little ribbing (and I've not seen anything more than that) then we really shouldn't be here.


----------



## Russ (22 Apr 2010)

This should cheer us all up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXW55S4X9zo


----------



## woodbloke (23 Apr 2010)

Alan Jones":1wnmt9dv said:


> Why foolishly woodbloke ? Never did anyone any harm being on the square :wink:


Long, long story...but you're very wrong - Rob


----------



## Argee (23 Apr 2010)

TrimTheKing":1s8riv2a said:


> We're all big boys ..


As recent events have shown, this is clearly *not *the case. Just as in (real) life, what is "ribbing" to some is a matter of considerable import to others, apparently. It was ever thus.

Ray


----------



## martin99 (23 Apr 2010)

Has Grim been banned? He says he has over there. What did he do this time?


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

martin99":2i1ssok9 said:


> Has Grim been banned? He says he has over there. What did he do this time?



not as far as i know - i cant find the thread where he says he has been on the otherside... are you sure you werent looking at the old thread from when he was banned the first time ??


----------



## Doug B (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":hjyv73i5 said:


> martin99":hjyv73i5 said:
> 
> 
> > Has Grim been banned? He says he has over there. What did he do this time?
> ...



http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewt ... =12&t=4488


He has been banned he confirmed that at last nights drinking section ccasion5:


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

ahh that explains it , its on a members only board and i'm not a member of the "otherside" which is why i couldnt see it.

that certainly happened quietly but i'm sure the mods had a good reason.


----------



## Doug B (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":3ky9tmxn said:


> ahh that explains it , its on a members only board and i'm not a member of the "otherside" which is why i couldnt see it.
> 
> that certainly happened quietly but i'm sure the mods had a good reason.



Would have been nice i imagine if they`d have given him a reason or a warning.

I not seen anything he`s posted that warrants his banning, quite a few post worst than him.


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

Doug B":2jwh9thu said:


> big soft moose":2jwh9thu said:
> 
> 
> > ahh that explains it , its on a members only board and i'm not a member of the "otherside" which is why i couldnt see it.
> ...



well yeah - i'd certainly expect him to be told why, and i agree that ive not seen anything that bad - tho we dont know whats been deleted of course. 

But then again anyone who is banned and then allowed back on any forum is going to be on a "watch list" so i guess its not really reasonable to expect a warning first.


----------



## Doug B (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":jq8potig said:


> But then again anyone who is banned and then allowed back on any forum is going to be on a "watch list" so i guess its not really reasonable to expect a warning first.



I would quite agree, but we do seem to be witnessing some double standard mod-ing.


----------



## Dibs-h (23 Apr 2010)

I think it's a shame - whilst some may not have liked Jacob - I honestly would struggle to recall anything Jacob has written since he came back that could have upset anyone.

He has his opinions and they certainly weren't baseless - I don't think this place will be any better off for banning him.

My tuppence worth.

Dibs


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

Dibs-h":2o5ewzsv said:


> I think it's a shame - whilst some may not have liked Jacob - I honestly would struggle to recall anything Jacob has written since he came back that could have upset anyone.
> 
> He has his opinions and they certainly weren't baseless - I don't think this place will be any better off for banning him.
> 
> ...



true but we are only speculating on why he was banned - i cant see philly, noel, chris etc banning him for no reason, so he might have done something that none of us know about


----------



## Dibs-h (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":1wdjpp3x said:



> true but we are only speculating on why he was banned - i cant see philly, noel, chris etc banning him for no reason, so he might have done something that none of us know about



That's the whole point - if none of us know - then it can hardly be a post that he's replied to or started - otherwise someone would know.

It will come out in the end - either this side or on the other! I suppose it's just more incentive to visit the other side.


----------



## woodbloke (23 Apr 2010)

Doug B":uv9agqbe said:


> big soft moose":uv9agqbe said:
> 
> 
> > But then again anyone who is banned and then allowed back on any forum is going to be on a "watch list" so i guess its not really reasonable to expect a warning first.
> ...


The mods do have their own board though, where they can natter amongst themselves. As I understand it Mr. Grim has departed again and I'm sure that there was a sound and valid reason...it's just that we aren't party to it - Rob


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

Dibs-h":2qxdj8u1 said:


> big soft moose":2qxdj8u1 said:
> 
> 
> > true but we are only speculating on why he was banned - i cant see philly, noel, chris etc banning him for no reason, so he might have done something that none of us know about
> ...



but there are other things that get you banned - if there was a falling out by pm , or if he had a pop at the mods by pm , or if he was operating two accounts , etc - any infarction of the rules could result in a banning and only the mods would know.

frankly i'm not that bothered - i have faith that the mods here wouldnt have banned him without good reason, and beyond that i really couldnt care less - i'm certainly not going to start lurking over there so that i can find out what happened, life is really too short.


----------



## Doctor (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":2a05oeg8 said:


> but there are other things that get you banned - if there was a falling out by pm , or if he had a pop at the mods by pm , or if he was operating two accounts , etc - any infarction of the rules could result in a banning and only the mods would know.



Rules are rules, but some rules apply more to some people :?


----------



## JonnyD (23 Apr 2010)

Doug B":37iu7d6l said:


> Imho i think the forum has lost it`s way a little, with too may over opinionated posters, which has been the reason for my lack of activity on here, though i wont be posting an "I`m leaving thread"................... well not just yet. :lol:



My thoughts exactly Doug. I think I know who you mean but I wont say as I believe he is a bit handy.  

cheers

Jon


----------



## Doug B (23 Apr 2010)

Doctor":tv06tkhs said:


> big soft moose":tv06tkhs said:
> 
> 
> > but there are other things that get you banned - if there was a falling out by pm , or if he had a pop at the mods by pm , or if he was operating two accounts , etc - any infarction of the rules could result in a banning and only the mods would know.
> ...




Exactly my point Dr, a level playing field for all, with the mods applying the rules equally to eveyone.


The really annoying bit is once again being in agreement with you Bob #-o #-o


----------



## RogerM (23 Apr 2010)

Doctor":2fw33la1 said:


> big soft moose":2fw33la1 said:
> 
> 
> > but there are other things that get you banned - if there was a falling out by pm , or if he had a pop at the mods by pm , or if he was operating two accounts , etc - any infarction of the rules could result in a banning and only the mods would know.
> ...



I remember when they eventually allowed Kenny Everitt back on BBC TV, on his first appearance he beamed at the camera and said something along the lines of "Well it's jolly nice to be back on the dear old Beeb, and the producer has said that I'll be fine so long as I don't say the word "pubes"" upon which 2 heavies came on and dragged him off screen. Wouldn't have happened to anyone else!


----------



## Ironballs (23 Apr 2010)

Didn't know Grim had been banned, he's been opinionated but not doing anything worthy of banning from what I'd seen - not that I read every post.

Back to the original topic and Rog starting a political poll thread, what did he expect, it was bound to end up being locked. He did post a lot of useful stuff but also chucked in a load of semi political stuff and his Duff Gov rants.

Of all the hissy fit "I'm off" threads I think he and Dick are tied for the lead with hissy-ist


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

heres a thing , if you click on grims profile its doesnt say anything about him being banned, and its still giving his status as "furniture maker" rather than "banned"

so before we all get our frilly bits in a knot and start kicking the hell out of the mod team, are we really sure hes been banned at all ?

particularly when you consider that according to doug, grim hasnt been told why , which is also a bit irregular

perhaps he isnt banned but just cant log on because of a technical error ?

maybe a mod could give a view ? and finally put this thread to bed


----------



## wizer (23 Apr 2010)




----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)




----------



## Mattty (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":298yxf3m said:


> Dibs-h":298yxf3m said:
> 
> 
> > big soft moose":298yxf3m said:
> ...



Why do you keep having a pop at wwuk? You make snide comments quite casually and with obvious intent and yet you have no reason as you also state your not a member. WWUK is a great forum just like here. It's more liberal and has a different slant but i'm sure everyone is welcome. Please either back up your comments or refrain.


----------



## laird (23 Apr 2010)

Jacob enjoys being banned.
It gives him something else to twitter on about. That's why he keeps (at least) 4 alter egos so he can lurk, and comment. 
In so many ways it's a shame,' cos he has ability and knowledge.
IMHO


----------



## wizer (23 Apr 2010)

I think Pete just meant that he doesn't want to lurk on there trying to work out what's gone one. To be fair Matty, the amount of abuse that flies our way from over there is astonishing and yet we very rarely are insulting (if ever) to them. It's all a bit obsessive I find. They are their own forum now. Surely they have better things to do than use an internet forum to abuse another internet forum. Quite why Jacob is so hell bent on creating ripples over here with his many accounts that he's forgot the passwords to.


----------



## big soft moose (23 Apr 2010)

Mattty":3qpz4oxt said:


> big soft moose":3qpz4oxt said:
> 
> 
> > Dibs-h":3qpz4oxt said:
> ...



not taken your paranoia meds today matty ? :lol:

all i meant, as tom righty surmised, is that I'm not going to start lurking on WWUK in order to get to the bottom of the "great grim mystery" because I have a life and dont give that much of a toss why he's been banned, or if he actually has

I dont particullarly have a problem with WWUK , its just not my sort of place which is why i havent joined it, (this is equally true of lumber jocks and numerous other sites) I'm quite happy with UKW, and would be happier still if all this conspiracy rubbish, good bye threads, criticisim of the mod team etc could stop and we'd all go back to talking about woodwork


----------



## Mattty (23 Apr 2010)

No problem, your use of :roll: says it all.

Edit- What happened to Matt's comment- it seemed very sensible to me.


----------



## matt (23 Apr 2010)

Mattty":3immh7qr said:


> Edit- What happened to Matt's comment- it seemed very sensible to me.



Thank you. I deleted it because, in hindsight, it dawned on me that what I was describing made it a comment that would trigger subsequent posts from some that would simply perpetuate the very observation I was making - if you see what I mean... I really could not be bothered with it :?


----------



## Mattty (23 Apr 2010)

ahhh yes sensible point. I'll take the cue.


----------



## Dibs-h (23 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":80xmqbhq said:


> Dibs-h":80xmqbhq said:
> 
> 
> > big soft moose":80xmqbhq said:
> ...



I wasn't suggesting visiting WWUk to find out what had happened to Jacob. It was more of a case that I had actually warmed to Jacob and felt that he did have a contribution to make. It appears that there are folk (Jacob) for one who don't or won't post on here and I do feel they certainly have a lot of knowledge of which I for one do value. it was for this reason - i.e. they won't (or in some cases can't) post on here - so one has to go there (i.e. where they can post) to see their opinions.

That's not to suggest that I don't value the contributions of folk here - I certainly do.


----------



## promhandicam (24 Apr 2010)

As someone who has a foot in both camps all I can add is that Jacob says



> I think they've just barred my ISP (whatever it is). It says 'you been banned' as before. Could be a computer thing, dunno.



Until someone on the moderating team feels it appropriate to clarify the situation then I guess the speculation as to what has happened will continue. I personally find it sad that these sorts of things are allowed to fester rather than being brought out into the open - something which is rare on WWUK.

Steve


----------



## studders (24 Apr 2010)

Others have been given a second chance, so why not Mr Grim? He hasn't killed or eaten any Babies as far as I'm aware.


----------



## SBJ (25 Apr 2010)

GRUNTER":1fk0mzvq said:


> big soft moose":1fk0mzvq said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



:lol: Very insightful Mr Grunter (if that is your real name)


----------



## motownmartin (25 Apr 2010)

Get your hard hats on, some of these dummies and rattles are quite hard.

Good luck everyone, i'm off to Cyprus in 15 mins 8)


----------



## woodbloke (25 Apr 2010)

GRUNTER":3hdvfciw said:


> That's because when you did go over there, they saw you for the pompous bombast that you are and wopped your sorry ass real good.


Interesting first post...I don't think a 'welcome' is necessary - Rob


----------

