Police to get tough on internet trolls. - Page 37

Russ · 07-02-2019, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I see that you are resorting to rudeness and (deliberately or otherwise) failing to convey what you actually mean, so I am now bringing our conversation to a close.

No problem, I’m happy to keep it going thanks.

Edit: hang on a minute!! Aren’t you supposed to make “adjustments” for my “rudeness”? Sounds like you’re failing in your duty to be “compassionate” to my conditions! Quick, someone pass me that legislation!!

**Paul** · 07-02-2019, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Well it's not like you say much here

So .... I have 22,267 posts, you have 4,128, so apparently I say about five times a much as you

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

or overrule certain people is it. Only when required. Such as now.

I only overrule when required ?? Wow, who would have guessed.

So wait ... you expect me to overrule when not required.

You are basically just talking complete nonsense.

peanut · 07-02-2019, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

So .... I have 22,267 posts, you have 4,128, so apparently I say about five times a much as you

I only overrule when required ?? Wow, who would have guessed.

So wait ... you expect me to overrule when not required.

You are basically just talking complete nonsense.

Feel free to move on then.

**Paul** · 07-02-2019, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Feel free to move on then.

As suspected, no actual answer, just duck out. Ok.

Mythica · 07-02-2019, 19:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

If you didn't take it as resolved you should have raised it with Mick at the time instead of waiting for six months to do so.

You weren't threatened with legal action for your discriminatory comment, you were told to stop harrassing me by PM and refused.

Details of said comment have been kept on file...

I have already accepted and agreed that those in non protected groups have remedies open to them. In fact, this may be the only way for this to be resolved

I let Mick make the decision, not that I thought it was resolved. The matter will never be resolved until you show me the evidence or apologise. I stated to you that I was willing to apologise to you if you could provide the evidence of what I said but you wouldn't. I've already stated why I let it go, I had more important things to worry about, these posts are an example of why I stated it's not just vulnerable people that need protecting. I'm glad you agree.

I know what I was threatened with legal action for which is why I said "and threatened legal action because I was asking you for evidence which you wouldn't provide". I wasn't harassing you, I was asking for evidence of something which you accused me of. Which goes back on topic of how am I supposed to protect myself when people like you who are threatening legal action when I want to get to the bottom of the accusation.

Details of no comment are on file Richard because I never once made fun of your disability. This is what I'm trying to do here, protect myself. You weren't willing to provide the evidence to either me or Mick yet still accused me of making fun of your disability then threatened legal action. How am I supposed to protect myself from that? I'm not vulnerable. So I think it's showing a bit of hypocrisy knowing your stance on the matter.

Russ · 07-02-2019, 19:29

Kind of wanting to stay out of this particular subject as I don’t talk about behind-the-scenes stuff with the CF mods but I have to say that what Mickleton and Paul have said here is pretty much the case...

TheDaddy · 07-02-2019, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

So .... I have 22,267 posts, you have 4,128, so apparently I say about five times a much as you

I only overrule when required ?? Wow, who would have guessed.

So wait ... you expect me to overrule when not required.

You are basically just talking complete nonsense.

I don't think it nonsense at all, would've been wiser not to have brought it up though, not worth the agrevation, just pop in every now and then and gradually fade away like the rest of us peanut

Russ · 07-02-2019, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythica

I let Mick make the decision, not that I thought it was resolved. The matter will never be resolved until you show me the evidence or apologise. I stated to you that I was willing to apologise to you if you could provide the evidence of what I said but you wouldn't. I've already stated why I let it go, I had more important things to worry about, these posts are an example of why I stated it's not just vulnerable people that need protecting. I'm glad you agree.

I know what I was threatened with legal action for which is why I said "and threatened legal action because I was asking you for evidence which you wouldn't provide". I wasn't harassing you, I was asking for evidence of something which you accused me of. Which goes back on topic of how am I supposed to protect myself when people like you who are threatening legal action when I want to get to the bottom of the accusation.

Details of no comment are on file Richard because I never once made fun of your disability. This is what I'm trying to do here, protect myself. You weren't willing to provide the evidence to either me or Mick yet still accused me of making fun of your disability then threatened legal action. How am I supposed to protect myself from that? I'm not vulnerable. So I think it's showing a bit of hypocrisy knowing your stance on the matter.

I don’t actually specialise in this area and is obviously way off-topic but I’ll just say this the once, always happy to give non-committal legal advice on certain matters

peanut · 07-02-2019, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

As suspected, no actual answer, just duck out. Ok.

Can't Mick speak for himself or does it take you both? Or just strength in numbers. Usual tactics. You butted in for no reason and now you're joining in.

13 years a member and yet you still wonder how things are the way the are.

I'm happy to leave it as it was. It's a pointless exercise to get involved. It's how it is and that's that.

Mythica · 07-02-2019, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

I don’t actually specialise in this area and is obviously way off-topic but I’ll just say this the once, always happy to give non-committal legal advice on certain matters

**Mick** · 07-02-2019, 19:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

What can I say. You won't like what I have to say and above all you won't accept anything I can say. So what's the point. Just live with the fact that we do.

But you do not, or whoever this "we" is, as previously explained.

You're making up stuff by saying something is not allowed on here, that is simply not true or accurate.

Mythica · 07-02-2019, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

But you do not, or whoever this "we" is, as previously explained.

You're making up stuff by saying something is not allowed on here, that is simply not true or accurate.

Technically it's true. You've stated in here we aren't allowed threads about Trump?

**Mick** · 07-02-2019, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythica

Technically it's true. You've stated in here we aren't allowed threads about Trump?

Quite right - There is a massive difference.

Discussing Trump has not been banned which is what peanut was suggesting, Trump can be brought up that forms part of a discussion but we are not having an entire thread on him, we had one for 3 years and that was enough.

**Paul** · 07-02-2019, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

Or just strength in numbers.

What numbers

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

You butted in for no reason and now you're joining in.

Its a forum, you made an incorrect statement in a post - I replied. Thats how a forum works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

13 years a member and yet you still wonder how things are the way the are.

Ive been a member 15.5 years.
You have been a member 13 years, so perhaps you mean yourself ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut

I'm happy to leave it as it was. It's a pointless exercise to get involved. It's how it is and that's that.

I have work to do so sure.

Remember, If you are so unhappy here, you can always leave, no one is stopping you.

Mythica · 07-02-2019, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Quite right - There is a massive difference.

Discussing Trump has not been banned which is what peanut was suggesting, Trump can be brought up that forms part of a discussion but we are not having an entire thread on him, we had one for 3 years and that was enough.

So something isn't allowed here then. I get the point he might be able to be mentioned in different topics, but I bet that topic would be soon moderatored for being off topic if it went on too long. Seems a silly rule to have that we aren't allowed a thread on him, yet your allowed to call people all names under the sun because you don't agree with them (not forum related, just people in general to do with the EU). I think that's partly were peanut is going with this and I agree with him if it is.