Bawheid Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I would just like fellow members to know that the moderator bryan found it in the boards best interests to ban despot/dipstick from the forum due to a comment about "sex starved priests" on a thread I started about our chairman How ironic it soon became off topic. Was this a ploy to take the heat off DDR? As for the comment made by despot - it was deemed as sectarian - I for one don't, are priests not celibate therefore sex -starved? What's the views of fellow members? Also nachonovoking spouts continuous attacks on our family but does not recieve any form of a ban, maybe the fact he himself is an ex moderator has something to do with this Anyone with any sense would have banned or simply warned both there again perhaps the fact it was a woman who was getting the better of them the only way to get some peace was to to have her removed. Well all I can say is the only way to rid of her is by assasination. Now there's a thought eat drink and be merry for tommorrow you may be radioiactive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Take the hint, you're banned for being a grubby little bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiGi Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 It's a forum. Maybe you should get a life. Peter Weatherson is the greatest player since Ritchie, and should be assigned 'chairman for life' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The greenock guvnor Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I would just like fellow members to know that the moderator bryan found it in the boards best interests to ban despot/dipstick from the forum due to a comment about "sex starved priests" on a thread I started about our chairmanHow ironic it soon became off topic. Was this a ploy to take the heat off DDR? As for the comment made by despot - it was deemed as sectarian - I for one don't, are priests not celibate therefore sex -starved? What's the views of fellow members? Also nachonovoking spouts continuous attacks on our family but does not recieve any form of a ban, maybe the fact he himself is an ex moderator has something to do with this Anyone with any sense would have banned or simply warned both there again perhaps the fact it was a woman who was getting the better of them the only way to get some peace was to to have her removed. Well all I can say is the only way to rid of her is by assasination. Now there's a thought Whether she should have been banned or not is debatable but could you go back to the point about the chairman. I doubt it was a ploy to take the heat off him. There are loads of morton fans who whether you agree with it or not hate the Old firm and what they stand for. In my opinion the sex starved priest jibe was asking for trouble but I can't quite understand how it deserved a ban. A severe warning yes but it could be said not the most severe sectarian gesture you will here in Scotland and quite possibly as you say priests may be sex starved. The Queen and co have been ridiculed on here for their Germanic links and that was never even looked at and the Pope has been ridiculed pretty severely and that too was never looked at. As for other religions they have been openly attacked on this forum very very recently but because they are not the old west of scotland Prod v Kafflick obssession or of a race or country which is not PC protected enough then that is ok. It is not. Bryan and the Mods I think unless Bawheids family continued the tirade you got this one wrong and you took into consideration the people involved and their back ground and not the facts which was not an unbiased decision . Nobody wants anybody banned on here. It certainly should not be used as a Big Brother tool to keep people from expressing unpopular differing views from the majority or from the Mods. That is gonna open up a whole can of worms on that stance if you do. Any how what was the point about the bold shoogily that you were going to make Bawheid. If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing. —Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The greenock guvnor Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Take the hint, you're banned for being a grubby little bigot. Perhaps nachoking you should take the hint for repeating once again abuse to a fellow poster. If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing. —Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Bryan and the Mods I think unless Bawheids family continued the tirade Yeah no sign of that anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortonjag Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Take the hint, you're banned for being a grubby little bigot. Proof! <_> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they pretend to befriend you, then you win! YER BARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest se65an Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I would just like fellow members to know that the moderator bryan found it in the boards best interests to ban despot/dipstick from the forum due to a comment about "sex starved priests" on a thread I started about our chairmanHow ironic it soon became off topic. Was this a ploy to take the heat off DDR? As for the comment made by despot - it was deemed as sectarian - I for one don't, are priests not celibate therefore sex -starved? What's the views of fellow members? Also nachonovoking spouts continuous attacks on our family but does not recieve any form of a ban, maybe the fact he himself is an ex moderator has something to do with this Anyone with any sense would have banned or simply warned both there again perhaps the fact it was a woman who was getting the better of them the only way to get some peace was to to have her removed. Well all I can say is the only way to rid of her is by assasination. Now there's a thought One big point what has that got to do with a thread about Dougie. You got to admit it does sound sectarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 One big point what has that got to do with a thread about Dougie. You got to admit it does sound sectarian You should have seen the post after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortonjag Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 You should have seen the post after it. What did it say? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they pretend to befriend you, then you win! YER BARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The greenock guvnor Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 You should have seen the post after it. I Must admit I did not see the post after it Nacho so did Bawheid continue to abuse you in a sectarian manner then ? If that is the case then the ban is justified because in my opinion in regards to sectarian or racist gestures it can be a bit like swearing what is deemed moderate in foul language like say bloody or s*** isn't as bad as the c word and this goes for sectarianism ie tattie munchers alla chick young on tv or Yid or saying going for an ice cream at the tally or for a chinky or clips about the cadburys monkey and orange order etc is deemed acceptable or funny and not as severe as say the N word or F n B or O n B etc. This then as Bryan has stated would mean bans all over the place for loads of people but if Bawheid continued to say more than the sex starved preist bit and you never retaliated then the ban is justified. Is this the case? If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing. —Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie McArthur Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 MARTY OUT!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortonjag Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I never imagined Bawheid would look like that! First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they pretend to befriend you, then you win! YER BARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I Must admit I did not see the post after it Nacho so did Bawheid continue to abuse you in a sectarian manner then ? If that is the case then the ban is justified because in my opinion in regards to sectarian or racist gestures it can be a bit like swearing what is deemed moderate in foul language like say bloody or s*** isn't as bad as the c word and this goes for sectarianism ie tattie munchers alla chick young on tv or Yid or saying going for an ice cream at the tally or for a chinky or clips about the cadburys monkey and orange order etc is deemed acceptable or funny and not as severe as say the N word or F n B or O n B etc. This then as Bryan has stated would mean bans all over the place for loads of people but if Bawheid continued to say more than the sex starved preist bit and you never retaliated then the ban is justified. Is this the case? Bawheid never abused me in a sectarian manner. It was his good lady wife (who posted on his account to start this thread.) What would my 'retaliation' have to do with it and what form would it take? The tally/chinky thing's been done to death on here a million times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 What did it say? Something about riding up the M8 on a white horse singing the sash to piss us ****s off, or words to that effect. It was all of a piece with the grubby little bigot's other postings, that much is clear. edit: the asterisked word is b'stard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdoc1874 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Whether she should have been banned or not is debatable but could you go back to the point about the chairman. I doubt it was a ploy to take the heat off him. There are loads of morton fans who whether you agree with it or not hate the Old firm and what they stand for. In my opinion the sex starved priest jibe was asking for trouble but I can't quite understand how it deserved a ban. A severe warning yes but it could be said not the most severe sectarian gesture you will here in Scotland and quite possibly as you say priests may be sex starved. The Queen and co have been ridiculed on here for their Germanic links and that was never even looked at and the Pope has been ridiculed pretty severely and that too was never looked at. As for other religions they have been openly attacked on this forum very very recently but because they are not the old west of scotland Prod v Kafflick obssession or of a race or country which is not PC protected enough then that is ok. It is not. Bryan and the Mods I think unless Bawheids family continued the tirade you got this one wrong and you took into consideration the people involved and their back ground and not the facts which was not an unbiased decision . Nobody wants anybody banned on here. It certainly should not be used as a Big Brother tool to keep people from expressing unpopular differing views from the majority or from the Mods. That is gonna open up a whole can of worms on that stance if you do. Any how what was the point about the bold shoogily that you were going to make Bawheid. Most of the abuse directed at religion recently has been by atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortonjag Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Something about riding up the M8 on a white horse singing the sash to piss us ****s off, or words to that effect. It was all of a piece with the grubby little bigot's other postings, that much is clear. edit: the asterisked word is b'stard Did she call you a b*stard before or after you described her family as 'inbreds'? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they pretend to befriend you, then you win! YER BARD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappiecat Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Something about riding up the M8 on a white horse singing the sash to piss us ****s off, or words to that effect. It was all of a piece with the grubby little bigot's other postings, that much is clear. edit: the asterisked word is b'stard That's what I rememer too. You're replies were all very diplomatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie McArthur Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 To be frank this whole thread is a total joke and will probably go on for 5 pages or until it gets closed. It's pathetic attention seeking at its worst. It's amazing that some blabber on about 'free speech' or whatever drivel their own little prejudices allow then cry their eyes out at 'the mods' whilst most of the folk on here can post what they want, put sometimes highly contenious opinions across and not be warned or banned. Perhaps, just like the Jesse forum, there could be an 'idiots corner'. MARTY OUT!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Did she call you a b*stard before or after you described her family as 'inbreds'? I think I called the bawheid family a pack of drooling inbreds before that, I'm not sure. That's what I rememer too. You're replies were all very diplomatic I learned from Iranian diplomats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.