Richard's jest posts

[Richard]

I agree fully, I've never so much as once been pulled-up for posting what's nothing more than a few asterisks. I mean, fair enough if you make a post with 10 of them someone might be justified in saying something, but the notion that anyone was ever told-off for just the odd piece of excercising the filter (which I'm assured, especially by Mitchell, they did) is a mad one IMO.

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.

Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

the needless lengthening





of a post





by putting in loa






ds of blank lines






for no real reason



is




even more annoying.

Agreed.

And IMO, Richard, it really isn't hard to use an appropriate smiley to get across when others shouldn't be taking you seriously.

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by Richard

I agree fully, I've never so much as once been pulled-up for posting what's nothing more than a few asterisks. I mean, fair enough if you make a post with 10 of them someone might be justified in saying something, but the notion that anyone was ever told-off for just the odd piece of excercising the filter (which I'm assured, especially by Mitchell, they did) is a mad one IMO.

Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.

The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

And IMO, Richard, it really isn't hard to use an appropriate smiley to get across when others shouldn't be taking you seriously.

As I say - I've tried that, more than a few times, and plenty often enough it doesn't work.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Richard

Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.

Interesting then...

Originally Posted by Richard

TBH, if you were making any sort of point I'm surprised you didn't even mildly chastise this too:

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Matteh

The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.

Insults that include swearing are generally, for obvious reasons, taken as larger attacks than insults with no swearing.

As (as you yourself mentioned once) demonstrated in the differing responses to you and Hing and a similar situation with you (and also Thomas) and Rodgie.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Interesting then...

The only reason I wondered whether some chastisement was coming was because of the insult. It'd have been no different if KiWi had said "that Fuller fool" or summat.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by Richard

The only reason I wondered whether some chastisement was coming was because of the insult. It'd have been no different if KiWi had said "that Fuller fool" or summat.

What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.

[Turbinator]

Haha another thread for Richard! Richard you lucky... .

Anyways, I agree with Vic on the fact that it's much better to use a smiley instead of the "this post was in jest".

Other than that, the "this post was in jest" thing doesn't really bother me much either.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.

[BoyBrumby]

I don't have a huge issue with the "jest" thing as such. I'm not saying this to have a pop at Rich, but I think it's fair to say he's not overly endowed in the humour department & sometimes where he may have been joking (after a fashion) people have assumed (myself included) that he was being serious.

The only time I ever really had a prob with it was when he went back & edited a post about an hour and a half after the fact to include the standard disclaimer in a (vain) attempt to weasel out of a Greigy.

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Richard

And that's absolute bull****, frankly.

No it's not, frankly. You try to dominate this place to a point where sometimes every 2nd post deserves a roll-eyes tbh

[Pup Clarke]

Originally Posted by Fiery

You try to dominate this place to a point where sometimes every 2nd post deserves a roll-eyes tbh

This is beginning to turn into every one on CW against Richard and quite frankly I find it rather pathetic. Richard may be a stubborn, irritable old sod at times but in my short experience on CW I don't think he's made personal attacks on members (the acception SW/BLE).

[Fiery]

Originally Posted by Pup Clarke

This is beginning to turn into every one on CW against Richard and quite frankly I find it rather pathetic. Richard may be a stubborn, irritable old sod at times but in my short experience on CW I don't think he's made personal attacks on members (the acception SW/BLE).

Nah, it's something that needs to be said tbh. Enough people on the site are irritated to be having this discussion, obviously

[Pup Clarke]

There are more irratiating things on this website than Richard. Scaly Piscine for one is one member who I really despise. Every single post he makes is sarcastic, offensive and downright rude. But I don't see people laying him like they lay into Richard.