# Whats that outside G.G's gaff ?



## nacho novo (Jan 27, 2006)

*Whats that outside Galloways gaff ?*

Is that barrels of oil?


----------



## swells (Jan 27, 2006)

Nah, tins of cat food  LOL


----------



## nacho novo (Jan 28, 2006)

Theres 3 steel drums sat outside George's Gaff, with "The Sun" newspaper logo emblazened on them.

"if a hexagon has 7 faces, how many face's does George Galloway have"?


----------



## Fisher_Gate (Jan 28, 2006)

nacho novo said:
			
		

> Theres 3 steel drums sat outside George's Gaff, with "The Sun" newspaper logo emblazened on them.
> 
> "if a hexagon has 7 faces, how many face's does George Galloway have"?



A hexagon has six sides - and no faces, as it's a two-dimensional shape.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 28, 2006)

Fisher_Gate said:
			
		

> A hexagon has six sides - and no faces, as it's a two-dimensional shape.


Geometrist  

[actually, what is a 7 sided figure - sepatagon??  I know 8 sided is Octagon - only cos theres a theatre in Bolton called that]


----------



## mutley (Jan 28, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Geometrist
> 
> [actually, what is a 7 sided figure - sepatagon??  I know 8 sided is Octagon - only cos theres a theatre in Bolton called that]



I blame the teachers.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 28, 2006)

nacho novo said:
			
		

> Theres 3 steel drums sat outside George's Gaff, with "The Sun" newspaper logo emblazened on them.


appen he's trying to entrap a steel band


----------



## Wilf (Jan 28, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> I blame the teachers.


I blame Pythagoras


----------



## yourmom (Jan 29, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Geometrist
> 
> [actually, what is a 7 sided figure - sepatagon??  I know 8 sided is Octagon - only cos theres a theatre in Bolton called that]


a heptagon..
from the Greek for 7..
but you can call it a septagon as well apparently


----------



## MikeMcc (Jan 29, 2006)

yourmom said:
			
		

> a heptagon..
> from the Greek for 7..
> but you can call it a septagon as well apparently



Would it be a heptahedron (cube with a corner snipped off) to have faces?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

they could put fucking margaret thatcher outside fucking galloway's gaff - he wouldn't notice - he's fled the fucking country. again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

MikeMcc said:
			
		

> Would it be a heptahedron (cube with a corner snipped off) to have faces?


then it's a -hedron of some description.


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 29, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> they could put fucking margaret thatcher outside fucking galloway's gaff - he wouldn't notice - he's fled the fucking country. again.




I hope not, some people in Penzanze are getting tooled up with flour and eggs for GGs appearance there on the 4th of February.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> I hope not, some people in Penzanze are getting tooled up with flour and eggs for GGs appearance there on the 4th of February.


i do hope you post pictures of it! 

any chance of a traditional tar and feathering for the member for bg & b?


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 29, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i do hope you post pictures of it!
> 
> any chance of a traditional tar and feathering for the member for bg & b?




Unfortunately I cannot get to Penzance next Saturday night.     The comments about eggs and flour were on the Indymedia forum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2006)

tobyjugUnfortunately I cannot get to Penzance next Saturday night.  :mad:  :(  The comments about eggs and flour were on the Indymedia forum./QUOTE said:
			
		

> Oh yes so they were, along with these comments:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 29, 2006)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> tobyjugUnfortunately I cannot get to Penzance next Saturday night.  :mad:  :(  The comments about eggs and flour were on the Indymedia forum./QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 29, 2006)

Anybody who throws eggs at Galloway but won't throw them at, say, Blair, or for that matter pretty much any MP, needs to look at their priorities.

Mind you, if they would, then fair play to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Anybody who throws eggs at Galloway but won't throw them at, say, Blair, or for that matter pretty much any MP, needs to look at their priorities.
> 
> Mind you, if they would, then fair play to them.


you've got to start somewhere, fm. and how else are you supposed to get egging practice than by beginning with someone like gallahway?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 29, 2006)

Plenty of fatter MPs than him, who make easier targets.


----------



## mutley (Jan 29, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you've got to start somewhere, fm. and how else are you supposed to get egging practice than by beginning with someone like gallahway?



You really do have an obsession with creating weird idiosyncratic spelling for people you don't like.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 29, 2006)

and from the look of him in that leotard it looks like he would make an unmissable target for those wanting to learn the noble art of egging and pie-ing.  When he comes to 'Oil For Food', doesn't look like he's been going short on the former.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> You really do have an obsession with creating weird idiosyncratic spelling for people you don't like.


credit where credit's due - it was ernestolynch who suggested it to me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 29, 2006)

That's quite an old one, though.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 29, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> they could put fucking margaret thatcher outside fucking galloway's gaff - he wouldn't notice - he's fled the fucking country. again.


where's he gone this time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

ireland


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 29, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Anybody who throws eggs at Galloway but won't throw them at, say, Blair, or for that matter pretty much any MP, needs to look at their priorities.
> .



What makes you think I wouldn't throw eggs at Blair? Don't make assumptions.


----------



## Elektra (Jan 29, 2006)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> tobyjugUnfortunately I cannot get to Penzance next Saturday night.  :mad:  :(  The comments about eggs and flour were on the Indymedia forum./QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2006)

Elektra said:
			
		

> Hocus Eye. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Jan 29, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> credit where credit's due - it was ernestolynch who suggested it to me.



No surprises there then... you appear to take all your cues from cuntolyncho these days... more fool you...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 29, 2006)

Still having a pop at those with no right of reply, pk?

Very brave.

Regarding Galloway, I can see him being dogged by this PR disaster wherever he shows his face.

The mainstream parties (New Labour especially) will be only to happy to lampoon Galloway as mercilessly as possible.


----------



## pk (Jan 29, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Still having a pop at those with no right of reply, pk?



You have right of reply, on his behalf - tell him from me he can go fuck himself.

Posted any pictures of anyones house lately?

Bunch of spineless shitcunts...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 29, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You have right of reply, on his behalf - tell him from me he can go fuck himself.
> 
> Posted any pictures of anyones house lately?
> 
> Bunch of spineless shitcunts...



Likewise to your good self.

And no, I don't post people's personal details, or identify them in any other way. 

Unlike your good self.

And spineless shitcunt is a name that suits the likes of you perfectly.


----------



## pk (Jan 29, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> No, I don't post people's personal details, or identify them in any other way.



Ern does though. Collects them all for his little collection of "files".

Does the sad cunt actually have a life?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 29, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Ern does though. Collects them all for his little collection of "files".
> 
> Does the sad cunt actually have a life?



Never met Ern personally.

But I fancy I'd prefer his company to yours.


----------



## pk (Jan 29, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Never met Ern personally.
> 
> But I fancy I'd prefer his company to yours.



Why do you stick up for the cunt then?

Oh yes - of course, he's part of your little Cunta clique....


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 29, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Why do you stick up for the cunt then?
> 
> Oh yes - of course, he's part of your little Cunta clique....



I'll often stick up for people when they are unable to do so for themselves.

And lowlives like you I'll stand up to on general principle.

And I'm not a member of the Junta, either, so yet again your ignorance shows itself for all to see.


----------



## pk (Jan 29, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I'll often stick up for people when they are unable to do so for themselves.
> 
> And lowlives like you I'll stand up to on general principle.
> 
> And I'm not a member of the Junta, either, so yet again your ignorance shows itself for all to see.



If you think I was responsible for that daft fake Ernesto blog, or that I posted his work details anywhere - you're the fucking ignorant one.

Sure, I took the piss out of him - after all, if he's stupid enough to tout his fucking pathetic "cominform" website in his profile without thinking anyone could do a quick "whois" check - then he's responsible for everything he gets...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 29, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> If you think I was responsible for that daft fake Ernesto blog, or that I posted his work details anywhere - you're the fucking ignorant one.
> 
> Sure, I took the piss out of him - after all, if he's stupid enough to tout his fucking pathetic "cominform" website in his profile without thinking anyone could do a quick "whois" check - then he's responsible for everything he gets...



Now why, given my previous experience of your snideness, does this not convince me?

And you ignored the other points I made in my previous post.

And, just so we don't derail the thread any further, do you have anything intelligent to contibute regarding Galloway's latest disaster?


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Now why, given my previous experience of your snideness, does this not convince me?
> 
> And you ignored the other points I made in my previous post.
> 
> And, just so we don't derail the thread any further, do you have anything intelligent to contibute regarding Galloway's latest disaster?



I didn't write that blog stuff, either of them. Though I read them.
Nothing I didn't already know.

And there's plenty of "Galloway's a cunt" threads out there.

How come you weren't invited to join the hallowed Junta clique then?

If they let the likes of the pathetic Annakey and Swarthy in, as well as Ernestoflinch, how come you get left out in the cold?

Interesting... maybe you aren't as two-faced and shit as the other lot after all...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I didn't write that blog stuff, either of them. Though I read them.
> Nothing I didn't already know.
> 
> And there's plenty of "Galloway's a cunt" threads out there.
> ...



Two-facedness I don't do, and I despise it in others. I was invited to post there earlier than some, but I lack the necessary technical skills to work as a mod or admin.

I just don't like your style online. It's unnecessarily inflammatory, you take your personal spats and continue them here, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time flitting between forums and derailing other people's threads by starting a fight where there was no need for one, and your sneery tone doesn't inspire me to treat as civilly as I might otherwise.

I don't know you in person, but I hope you aren't like you are here.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Two-facedness I don't do, and I despise it in others. I was invited to post there earlier than some, but I lack the necessary technical skills to work as a mod or admin.



So you think, like I do, that the members of the Junta forum are a bunch of two-faced wankers?

Interesting.

And I doubt membership of the Cunta forum is dependant on moderating or admin skills... even Pickmans Mongrel is a member and he couldn't moderate a Mars Bar.



> I just don't like your style online. It's unnecessarily inflammatory, you take your personal spats and continue them here, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time flitting between forums and derailing other people's threads by starting a fight where there was no need for one, and your sneery tone doesn't inspire me to treat as civilly as I might otherwise.



I give as good as I get - and maybe you haven't been around too long to notice - but the only people truly guilty of dragging out their obsessions are those invited to join the Junta forum. 
Any personal spats you speak of were started here anyway - and they will be finished here, undoubtedly.



> I don't know you in person, but I hope you aren't like you are here.



In person I wouldn't tolerate the presence of certain two-faced "tollinggang" cunts in my vicinity any more than you would, so no, I'm nothing like the person you see here because I don't know anyone as shit as Ernesto, or Swarthy, or a few of the other twunts, in real life.
Posting up pictures of someone's parents house - utterly cuntish.

Nice company you keep online...


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 30, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Plenty of fatter MPs than him, who make easier targets.


you dont mean poor old johnny two jags .i think blair will be there before you


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So you think, like I do, that the members of the Junta forum are a bunch of two-faced wankers?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> ...



I haven't met the Junta as yet, but they don't seem anywhere near as snide as you do. Not online at any rate.

And they aren't toadies one minute and offensive to other when they are allowed to get away with it the next.

Unlike you.

And you aren't meant to play about with people's usernames, so that's ANOTHER breach of the FAQ's.

And you seem to drag out your personal obsessions with the TTG folk at every turn.

As far as you merely giving as good as you get, didn't you admit once that you like turning up and provoking a row simply because you feel like it? Self defence is one thing, but you go looking for trouble and deliberately try to stir up as much shit as possible, even when there's no reason to.

And, for the second time of asking, do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread?

Yes or no?


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I haven't met the Junta as yet, but they don't seem anywhere near as snide as you do. Not online at any rate.



If you're not part of the Cunta crew then you'll only be party to the non-secret forums - of course they're as nice as pie there where they can be seen. Only in private do they feel brave enough to post up pictures of people's parents houses and take the piss.

As I said - spineless cunts. 
Shame I didn't hear about this shit until the weekend.



> And they aren't toadies one minute and offensive to other when they are allowed to get away with it the next.
> 
> Unlike you.



What are you saying I'm "allowed to get away with"?

I've been banned once this week, and constantly given the warnings when I admittedly go a bit overboard.

I think the difference between me and the Cunta crew is that I'm happier to have a go in public, and would never bother slagging people off on some shitty secret forum like some cowardly cunt.



> And you aren't meant to play about with people's usernames, so that's ANOTHER breach of the FAQ's.



You sound like a grass. Reported the post?

Word is, the Cunta crew have been grassed... so we might see who the real two-faced twats are...



> And you seem to drag out your personal obsessions with the TTG folk at every turn.



I don't believe for a second the TTG crew are just peacefully trying to get their forum going without a cauldron of shitstirring behind the scenes - certainly not if wankers like Ernesto and Annakey and Intostella are moderating. You want obsessives then look no further.



> As far as you merely giving as good as you get, didn't you admit once that you like turning up and provoking a row simply because you feel like it?



Probably, though in context I would likely have been provoking the type of twunt known for doing the same thing - some no mark troller previously banned and just turning up here for kicks... I don't just irk people for no reason.



> Self defence is one thing, but you go looking for trouble and deliberately try to stir up as much shit as possible, even when there's no reason to.



The fuck you would know about it, having been here just over a year?



> And, for the second time of asking, do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread?
> 
> Yes or no?



Yep.

Galloway is a cunt.

The Pope is Catholic.

The Earth is round.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> If you're not part of the Cunta crew then you'll only be party to the non-secret forums - of course they're as nice as pie there where they can be seen. Only in private do they feel brave enough to post up pictures of people's parents houses and take the piss.
> 
> As I said - spineless cunts.
> Shame I didn't hear about this shit until the weekend.
> ...



So you have NOTHING intelligent to contribute to this thread.

No change there then.

I can't be arsed to carry on derailing the thread and wasting time on the likes of you any longer.

We're obviously not going to have any time for one another.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> So you have NOTHING intelligent to contribute to this thread.
> 
> No change there then.
> 
> ...



Pilgrim, I don't know you any more than you know me.

But if you're here to stick up for fucking Ernesto and the other cunts, expect me to give you shit for it.

It's my job.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Pilgrim, I don't know you any more than you know me.
> 
> But if you're here to stick up for fucking Ernesto and the other cunts, expect me to give you shit for it.
> 
> It's my job.



I stick up for people you like to gratuitously insult when they have no right of reply.

In my book, that makes you a coward, and a snide coward at that.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I stick up for people you like to gratuitously insult when they have no right of reply.



So you'll be sticking up for the person who rightly complained about pictures of his fiance's PARENTS house being stuck up on thetrollinggang's hidden forums then?

Glad to hear it.

I've always insulted Ernesto, probably always will if he keeps acting the cunt.

You don't seem to know much about the situation, so I suggest you get your facts straight before diving to defend the people that are the REAL snide cowards here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> So you'll be sticking up for the person who rightly complained about pictures of his fiance's PARENTS house being stuck up on thetrollinggang's hidden forums then?
> 
> Glad to hear it.
> 
> ...



I've studied the thread concerned (in the public forum), the relevent link found is: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=144874. Assuming this link works.

Looks like your complaint doesn't hold much water if the picture in question was already in the public domain. If people don't want something on public display, then don't put it out there. And that applies to everyone equally.

Although, in the interests of fairness, I wouldn't condone any misuse that had an adverse effect on anyone's personal life.

Perhaps you'd care to condemn the fake blog that persons unknown put up about Ern?

Edoted to add: I notice that the picture in question has since been edited out. There can be no doubt that it existed, however.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I've studied the thread concerned (in the public forum), the relevent link found is: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=144874. Assuming this link works.
> 
> Looks like your complaint doesn't hold much water if the picture in question was already in the public domain.
> 
> ...



Again, your lack of knowledge of this situation is showing.

When the accusations of that fake Ern blog first surfaced, it wasn't long before the finger was pointing my way... and I thought that had all been sorted out anyway... I said quite clearly at the time I thought the person who did it should expect some grief from me, as I was the one getting the shit from it.

Do a search for the thread, it's still out there somewhere.

And the picture in question now displays the message "Fuck off and die Ern, you odious cunt", which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly applaud.

Let me spell this out for you, Pilgrim, to give you something to think about whilst you go away and get your facts straight.

I didn't write the fake blog. If I'd done so it would have been a lot funnier.
And I wouldn't have included details, the like of which are still clearly visible in spite of the page being removed.

Ern's real name, which I admit putting up briefly, is also in the public domain - it was embedded in the stupid website he was touting in his profile.

The name of his work place is also in the public domain.

His photo is also in the public domain.

I know for a fact my picture has been touted about on thetrollinggang... well before any of this shit happened... maybe you don't know about that then??

So don't come and preach to me or anyone about the "ethical" issues.

Ern and his sycophantic anarkid supporters are shit, that's a fact, get used to it.

I will continue to slag them off when they're pulling tricks like that in secret forums and then get caught out because someone grassed, as I said, it's my job. 

I enjoy it too.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Again, your lack of knowledge of this situation is showing.
> 
> When the accusations of that fake Ern blog first surfaced, it wasn't long before the finger was pointing my way... and I thought that had all been sorted out anyway... I said quite clearly at the time I thought the person who did it should expect some grief from me, as I was the one getting the shit from it.
> 
> ...



So, you'll be happy to condemn unreservedly whoever (assuming it wasn't you) posted up that blog, then? I did state that I don't approve of people's personal details being misused for personal vendettas, so perhaps you'd like to share that dislike?

And I haven't seen much in the way of sycophancy about Ern over the road, and I'm there frequently. I don't see much in the way of sycophancy at all, tbh.

And if people have been misusing your personal details, as wrong as that would be, perhaps you should supply some evidence instead of merely repeating the allegation. Allegations without proof don't stand up well on thier own.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> And if people have been misusing your personal details, as wrong as that would be, perhaps you should supply some evidence instead of merely repeating the allegation. Allegations without proof don't stand up well on thier own.



You go ask your mates about in on the snide cowardly two-faced trollinggang website about it... it's a known fact.

Kea put my picture up... for the benefit of Ernesto's files no doubt.

And as one of the site moderators over there - who appears to have flounced off this site - that's pretty fucked up.

If any of the moderators here stuck a picture of her on the web and proceeded to rip the piss, she'd have a pretty fit, and you know it.

And stop it with the "assuming it wasn't you" bullshit - I didn't make that stupid blog, either of them, and as I recall saying at the time - if I had then I'd have had to have good reason, and I'd have rubbed his fucking nose in it.

It wasn't me, so accept that and move on.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You go ask your mates about in on the snide cowardly two-faced trollinggang website about it... it's a known fact.
> 
> Kea put my picture up... for the benefit of Ernesto's files no doubt.
> 
> ...



So you aren't going to present any evidence?

That suggests you don't have any.

If she did do it, then she shouldn't have. 

But I'll want to see some evidence first.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> So you aren't going to present any evidence?
> 
> That suggests you don't have any.
> 
> ...



As I recall the thread was moved off public view by Ernesto... as soon as it was clear I was pissed off about it.

And I recall debating the issue with you too.

Added to this is the fact that another of the site's moderators had this to say to me: "I'd laugh if your kids were dead".

And you wonder why I have a big problem with the kind of people running thetrollinggang?

Do yourself a favour Pilgrim, get some better mates.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Jan 30, 2006)

Here we go again.  

Another fucking tedious,off-topic,pile of bile.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

1/ How many Galloway threads do people need?

I'm bored of the old tosser already, having watched him on my TV for the past 3 weeks.

2/ If this was a thread set up for the purpose of slagging off another website, then everyone would fucking moan.

I just took the piss out of Pickman's referring to the fact that he nicked one of Ernesto's least funny ideas, and he's claiming it, as part of a deeply flawed character.

If Pilgrim wants to take that issue up and run with it, I'm happy to explain to him a few facts.

You think that's tedious, fine, the internet is a big place to find something less tedious, but this is part of a long running grievance you know nothing about... and it's hardly going to go away if this kind of shit continues, especially in the face of assurances made by the few decent people on the other site that discussing private info and stuff, with photos, is out of order and won't be tolerated.

Unlike thetossinggang.org I think it's healthier to have these things out in the open - as opposed to being dealt with in a one sided manner on secret forums.

If even after all the bollocks that's already happened in the last three months - and bear in mind I've not ONCE gone over there and trolled them to fuck to provoke anything at all - if there are STILL personal pictures not only just of people but even of their parents houses being passed about in secret, never mind other salacious details passed from people who were once mates to nosey fucking scum like Ernesto for his sad collection of "files" on other people - an even deeply serious personality flaw if ever I saw one, does this cunt actually have any real mates? - then it's no wonder people are going to get pissed off. I know I am, with all of this bullshit.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

Sesquipedalian said:
			
		

> Here we go again.
> 
> Another fucking tedious,off-topic,pile of bile.



To be fair, you're absolutely right.

This hasn't really served any useful purpose at all.

Best thing to do would be to leave it alone.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> Best thing to do would be to leave it alone.



I thought you might say that - once you realised you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on, defending Ernestolynch.

Or his mate, the other obsessive nutjob Swarthy Thug.

See ya then Pilgrim... I'll take your rapid fleeing of the issue after jumping in so bravely before as an admission that - in spite of all the rowdy bollocks that goes along with being "pk" on these boards - I do have a very valid point.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I thought you might say that - once you realised you haven't got a fucking leg to stand on, defending Ernestolynch.
> 
> Or his mate, the other obsessive nutjob Swarthy Thug.
> 
> See ya then Pilgrim... I'll take your rapid fleeing of the issue after jumping in so bravely before as an admission that - in spite of all the rowdy bollocks that goes along with being "pk" on these boards - I do have a very valid point.



You haven't presented an iota of evidence whatsoever, despite having been asked to, so I don't see what you have to crow about. I didn't see you raise much that was valid at all.

And I was defending Ern because you, rank coward that you are, were attacking someone who had no right of reply.

If you had been permanently banned and Ern was doing this, I wouldn't be supporting him either.

So, until you present some evidence to back up your claims, I'll cintinue to regard you as a liar, a coward and a sneak.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> You haven't presented an iota of evidence whatsoever, despite having been asked to, so I don't see what you have to crow about. I didn't see you raise much that was valid at all.
> 
> And I was defending Ern because you, rank coward that you are, were attacking someone who had no right of reply.
> 
> ...



Evidence for what?

It's common knowledge!

All your bleating for evidence, changes nothing.

It's a known FACT Ern collects whatever snippets of gossip he can and files them away, pictures, details of work, names, all to feed his fantasy that he's actually part of a community. He's admitted it here, and I know he does.

It's also a fact Kea posted a pic of me over there for Intostella to gawp at, which led to my going apeshit over it... I wouldn't give a fuck if it were just a few anarkids, but I'm never giving up anything to the likes of Ern - what a great idea - set up a bulletin board and let Ern be a moderator... for fucks sake.

And if you're telling me there is no secret little forum on a board controlled by Ernestolynch, Annakey, and Swarthy Thug that is set up purely for slagging off Urban 75, its users, and involving much file swapping and personal detail sharing, then I am going to be highly suspicious that you are indeed talking straight out of your arse, Pilgrim.

I could see by the way the thread with the photos there was moved, not binned, that it had been whisked away where nobody but the lowlife spineless cunts could see it.

Look, if you're not party to these secret little forums, then keep out of this Pilgrim.

Because they OBVIOUSLY exist.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Evidence for what?
> 
> It's common knowledge!
> 
> ...



Then PROVE IT, and I'll be satisfied.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

How can I prove it if the thread has been moved/deleted?

This kicked off in December... it's been dealt with.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3950330&postcount=147

Or more accurately - assurances that "ooh no, we'd never do such a thing" appeared all over that thread - yet here we are again, and the photo of someone's parent's house is up there and the piss taken.

Here's Butchersapron giving it the solemn promises...

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3950357&postcount=153

I've never got on with him, but I never thought I'd see the day he bows to the wishes of Ernestolynch just so that the fucking worm can add information to his files.

Kea posted up my picture. I think WoW had his picture posted too.

Party pictures from editor's collection.

I saw it with my own eyes, and said at the time it's dissensus part 2 - if you don't know shit about this issue then leave it and come back when you do.... it's none of your business anyway if you're not in the "secret clique".

And bring a menber of the Cunta forum with you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> How can I prove it if the thread has been moved/deleted?
> 
> This kicked off in December... it's been dealt with.
> 
> ...



I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll ask around, and see what comes up.

That's fair.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Here's your proof.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3950370&postcount=157


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what I'll do.
> 
> I'll ask around, and see what comes up.
> 
> That's fair.



So you accept my proof, such as it is - you accept my point that Ernestolynch is an obsessed streak of piss with a nasty habit of collecting personal information about people he has never met, and you accept that in spite of clear uproar about personal pictures being used as some kind of in-joke turning these boards into WW3 just before Xmas - here we are again discussing the picture of someone's house being posted up.

You ask around and see what comes up.

You PM me the copies of the threads, the originals, or post them here, although that would take the guts that I know the mods at thetossersgang.org don't have.

In the meantime - don't lower yourself by sticking up for Ernestolynch.

The guys a tragic waste, which is why it is even more surprising that certain people play his fucking weirdo game, especially as he's too scared to come out in public anyway, and so keen to threaten people with legal action when they do the same thing to him...

It's frankly pathetic to see people I thought were better than him actively encouraging this kind of shit.

You know - if the trollinggang had been set up without Ern, Annakey and Swarthy - you'd have had a far more positive response.

But if you're going to stick up for them, you may as well be doing what they are, which is two faced, cowardly, and cuntish.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Here's your proof.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3950370&postcount=157



I've asked around and I'm awaiting a reply.

If they were doing this, and they have lied about doing it after I've asked them specifically about it, then I'm happy to condemn them for it. Just like I would anyone else who indulged, on either side of this little farrago.

For the record, I don't think this business has really done anyone any favours. There's an awful lot of bitterness flying around that I don't think has much to do with the simple act of setting up a bulletin board. To be honest, I'd say that people on both sides are using this as a cover for continuing all manner of personal disputes rather than simply letting things lie or talking them through like reasonable people do.

If I've made things worse than they needed to be, and been ill-used by either side, and I'm certainly NOT claiming to be free of blame (although it would have been more foolishness than malice), I'll hold my hand up to that.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I've asked around and I'm awaiting a reply.
> 
> If they were doing this, and they have lied about doing it after I've asked them specifically about it, then I'm happy to condemn them for it. Just like I would anyone else who indulged, on either side of this little farrago.



You can condemn all you like - it'll change fuck all if the ego of Ern runs the forums, as it appears to now.



> For the record, I don't think this business has really done anyone any favours. There's an awful lot of bitterness flying around that I don't think has much to do with the simple act of setting up a bulletin board. To be honest, I'd say that people on both sides are using this as a cover for continuing all manner of personal disputes rather than simply letting things lie or talking them through like reasonable people do.



Except one side would rather have the debate out in the open, and be completely transparent, as opposed to hiding away in a secret forum giggling at photos and swapping personal details about people.



> If I've made things worse than they needed to be, and been ill-used by either side, and I'm certainly NOT claiming to be free of blame (although it would have been more foolishness than malice), I'll hold my hand up to that.



That's fair enough.

But you haven't been the one on the recieving end of this bollocks - if you were you might be reacting in precisely the same way as myself, or Dub, or WoW, or anyone else.

I'll make things as bad as they need to be to get to the truth as I see it - that Ern and others are using the new boards to attack Urban posters and swap info, and they're being helped out in private by two-faced twunts that used to be considered friends by all kinds of people here, not just me.

All that was before you were posting here Pilgrim.

You see my point yet?

You accept that I might be right in not giving a fuck about Ern or his cunt mates?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> You can condemn all you like - it'll change fuck all if the ego of Ern runs the forums, as it appears to now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In all honesty, if Ern and the others have been acting up in the manner described, then I don't stand for secrecy and hidden malice. I like (online and off) a straight, clean and open argument rather than simply sneaking around, whispering and huddling in corners. That's not my style at all.

You're right to point out that I might feel differently if I were a victim of such practices. Of course I would. Most people would if they're honest. Everyone dispises the sneak, the grass, the snitch and the toady. At least, everyone with an ounce of integrity does anyway. Nobdy likes being on the end of a whispering campaign.

If the TTG crew have been up to no good, then fine, I jumped on the wrong side of the fence. I have a tendency to call things as I see them, and, like most if not all men, an absolute unwillingness to admit I've got something wrong. I also have a marked tendency to stand with minority groups as a matter of general principle, without necessarily checking them out properly first.

One thing it seems I was right about though. People are using this business as a means to continue personal vendettas. That's sad really, they are only a couple of bulletin boards after all.

Maybe we all just need to get out more, and away from our keyboards, me included.


----------



## past caring (Jan 30, 2006)

Whooooo-ooooooooo.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Yeah very clever, kid - anything to add though?

Or are you going to hide behind Ern and defend the indefensible too?

These forums are private, you need to register, and there's plenty of stuff about that fuckwit that is in the public domain - assuming you go along with the argument that if it's already in the public domain it's fair game for discussion then he or his little supporters can't moan if I start posting his picture up and shit, right?


----------



## past caring (Jan 30, 2006)

I tell you what - you lobby the editor for open access to the DJ/party forums, then we'll talk, eh?


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> I tell you what - you lobby the editor for open access to the DJ/party forums, then we'll talk, eh?



I'm not a member of any DJ/Party forums - gave them up to be able to have access to the radio production forums.

In neither forum has there ever been any slagging off of any other posters, ever, and I haven't posted in either for about three months.

You can ask Dr Jazzz - he was using the radio forum for a bit - things in there were very civilised and completely unconcerned with the two-faced twunts who use your new website... he's hardly going to lie for me.

The DJ forum was about planning Offline nights, but they don't appear to be necessary now as the night is established.

Certainly nobody has ever been using it to pass snide details of people around to entertain the likes of Ern... nobody has. That's a fact.

I take it you have full access to this secret forum then, PC?

Are you going to deny it's used for personal attacks and file-gathering for Daffy Duckwit?

If you do - I'm going to call you a liar.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

All gone quiet then... surprise surprise...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 30, 2006)

A most welcome and pleasant surprise for the rest of us.   Now if only you'd follow his lead.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

DexterTCN said:
			
		

> A most welcome and pleasant surprise for the rest of us.   Now if only you'd follow his lead.



Nope, no can do.

Keep out of this one Dexter, it's not over by a long stretch.

You know if this were tackled on a new thread it would be binned as a call out, so this is the only way to settle it.

And by settling things everyone can move on, then you can have your peace.

Seeing as most of the people I think are behind the bullshit resided in this forum, where better to talk about this stuff?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Keep out of this one Dexter, it's not over by a long stretch.


oooooh, here comes the hard man again.

go tough boy , go!


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Avoiding the issue Bellend?

True to form...

How does it feel to be one of ernesto's bitches?

Are you a willing participant or does he have to get you in a headlock first?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2006)

All right, all right, enough of this again.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Avoiding the issue Bellend?
> 
> True to form...
> 
> ...


and indeed, true top your piss poor form.

fuck off back to cheering on murdering coppers little boy


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Nope, no can do.
> 
> Keep out of this one Dexter, it's not over by a long stretch.
> 
> ...


Hmm...you seem to see a heroic stand against evil enemies.  I see off-topic arguing.   Having said that, pilgrim is the first one to call anyone a cunt for for their views (that's pretty much all I know about the pair of you) so get stuck in.

Can anyone supply me with a pm regarding the basics?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2006)

Just so you know who you're dealing with:

Post '52 today from PK:

*"Ern's real name, which I admit putting up briefly"*

But just one month ago in reply to me saying that

"Fine by me. But it's bit rich for him to keep bringing up something that apparrently was removed within seconds when he's still doing that to others. It's hardly helpful is it?"

he posted:

"What are you saying here, lets clear this up.

Have I posted Erns picture here? No, absolutely not.

*His name? Nope, again... absolutely not.*

His workplace? Of course not.

From which lying little cunt are you getting your information? 
Because, not unusually - you got your facts fucked up Butch."

It's not worth wasting your time dealing with him, beause he _will_ out and out lie to you, he _will_ out and out lie to the mods when asked and he'll do all he can to stir up shit. Just leave him to drown in it himself.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> and indeed, true top your piss poor form.
> 
> fuck off back to cheering on murdering coppers little boy



What the fuck are you on about, cheering on murdering coppers??

You're thinking of that little idiot jimmer... not me.

Run away from the issue... all you're good for...


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Just so you know who you're dealing with:
> 
> Post '52 today from PK:
> 
> ...



I put his name in my tagline at about 4am for about 4 seconds, then thought better of it because I'm not of the same lowlife ilk as he is.

Kea posted my picture up well before that happened - which you know about.

How many pictures of me are there on your Cunta forums??

And William of Walworth??

How many of him do you have?

Be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Be honest.


 What like you were?

No i did not do that  - i did not have Erns name as my tagline. I really really didn't. I swear i didn't. ..

Wait one month...your lies usually untangle nicely.

I'm taking my own advice - and not allowing you play this pointless game with me. I suggest others do the same.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What like you were. No i did not do that. I really really didn't. I swaer i didn't.
> 
> Wait one month, and your lies usually untangle nicely.
> 
> I'm taking my own advice - and not allowing you play this pointless game with me. I suggest others do the same.



Running away because you can't answer a single simple question.

Are the secret TTG forums being used deliberately to beef up ernesto's collection of "files" or not?

Are there still pictures being posted up there, in spite of all assurances that you'd never put up with that, and delete them on sight, castigate the posters involved?

Because it sounds to me like you're just _itching_ to evade answering that one.

I think you're lying, if you're going to tell me that.

Not with ern, swarthy and annakey as mods.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> What the fuck are you on about, cheering on murdering coppers??
> 
> You're thinking of that little idiot jimmer... not me.
> 
> Run away from the issue... all you're good for...


memory as poor as your grasp of english seemingly.  there's a suprise.

a liar, a bullshitter, a macho moron - remind me why anyone should pay one seconds attention to anything you write?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 30, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> All right, all right, enough of this again.



well bin it then.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Yeah! Bin it quick!

That way we won't have to answer the awkward questions posed by that nasty pk!!

 

What a transparent cop-out!


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> memory as poor as your grasp of english seemingly.  there's a suprise.
> 
> a liar, a bullshitter, a macho moron - remind me why anyone should pay one seconds attention to anything you write?



Just answer the question, save the abuse for later.

I'm not being abusive - just asking the question.

Is the secret forum a place for ern and the other twats to laugh at pictures of urban75 posters and share information, maybe even co-ordinate trolling attacks?

I believe it is, in light of recent events.

Where's bristleKRS?

He's one of the few people I'd actually believe... none of you lot are capable of giving a straight answer without wriggling or getting abusive to try and get this thread binned.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> memory as poor as your grasp of english seemingly.  there's a suprise.
> 
> a liar, a bullshitter, a macho moron - remind me why anyone should pay one seconds attention to anything you write?



You can't do it can you?

You can't answer a simple question!!

You really are being headlocked by ernestolynch!! 

Jesus, how pathetic.

Oh well, I guess if you hit the report post button enough times it might get binned - save you having to wriggle any further...


----------



## past caring (Jan 30, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Whooooo-ooooooooo.



Duh-duh-duh-duh

Duh-duh-duh-duh

Duh-duh-duh-duh

Duh-duh-duh-duh

Whooooo-ooooooooo


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Still waiting...

Looks like they've convieniently gone for lunch - save by the bell, indeed.

 

Never mind - I'll be here when they get back.

And if not, then the next day.

And the day after that.

I know for a fact my photo has been stuck up there already, and now I hear about WoW and Dub getting their personal pictures put up.

This is an issue that should concern all Urbanites.

If some buch of snide cowards is feeding info to the socially retarded gimp ernestolynch - then I think it should be out in the open.

Your collective silence breeds suspicion, and this ain't going to go away, tollinggang... especially seeing as none of those members with any spine have yet posted...


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Yeah! Bin it quick!
> 
> That way we won't have to answer the awkward questions posed by that nasty pk!!
> 
> ...



what's the point, pk? What's all this going to solve? 

I can sit here and tell you that's not the case, but you'll just call me a liar. Then we can continue down the same road, with the same arguments to the end of time. 

Dubversion, apparently a far bigger than yourself, rightly decided that it would be counter-productive to discuss his grievance on these boards. Only a truly arrogant man would decide to take it upon themselves to override that decision.

Do you think the moderators on this site thank you for turning each and every day into endless fractious discussion on old posters? Do you think it makes this place a good read for all the other posters here? Do you think it makes the task of those TTG who want U75 to be mentioned less frequently any easier? 

What on earth is the point in either of us engaging in this debate? 

The above is why I want it binned. The above is why that's most likely where it'll end up. 

Not because anyone on TTG cares what's "revealed" about us over here.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 30, 2006)

A Doctor writes: the sound of someone talking out loud to themselves is very sad and distressing and can be a sign of more deeper disturbing behaviour.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Duh-duh-duh-duh
> 
> Duh-duh-duh-duh
> 
> ...



Again - unable to answer the question.

I think I'll take your pathetic wriggling as proof that, indeed, in spite of all that BULLSHIT posted up about your little website "oh, it's not set up to attack urban, we'd never allow pictures on the site or personal info!" it's looks clear to me that behind the safety of the cliquey Cunta forum there's plenty of stuff being discussed that is just way out of order.

Just don't fucking complain if ernesto or any other of you twats gets the same treatment... you haven't got a leg to stand on.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2006)

why should anyone bother attempting to 'justify' anything to a bul;lshitting little no mark like you?  no reason whatsoever.

so, go on, stick another 'haha you cant answer anything' post up, and watch us all not give a flying fuck.

you're a failure pk


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> what's the point, pk? What's all this going to solve?



Proves the point that, just like dissensus, thetollinggang is just another pathetic website set up in good faith but hijacked by some idiot to further his obsession and organise continued hate-campaigns against people here.

And I was under the impression that there was a little more integrity to it than that. Let's be open and clear about things shall we?



> I can sit here and tell you that's not the case, but you'll just call me a liar. Then we can continue down the same road, with the same arguments to the end of time.



Are you seriously telling me that obsessolynch and the other banned twats have moved on from discussing urban 75, posting pictures, divulging personal info for his "files" and generally being the spineless low life they always were??

What - they're into knitting patterns now are they??



> Dubversion, apparently a far bigger than yourself, rightly decided that it would be counter-productive to discuss his grievance on these boards. Only a truly arrogant man would decide to take it upon themselves to override that decision.



What he does and what I do are different - we're not a clique unlike your lot.



> Do you think the moderators on this site thank you for turning each and every day into endless fractious discussion on old posters? Do you think it makes this place a good read for all the other posters here?



Do you think the constant trolling of this site makes life easy for anyone?
Or the copying of personal pictures?
Discussing details about people's private lives to your select clique of people?

Does that make life easy for anyone?



> Do you think it makes the task of those TTG who want U75 to be mentioned less frequently any easier?



Don't give me that bollocks - anyone, and I mean ANYONE who considers themselves peaceable and wanting to maintain friendships with urban75 people, and go to the club nights, and all that stuff - anyone who wants to keep that going yet do fuck all about ern and his merry bunch of obsessives running around with people's personal details can fuck off.



> What on earth is the point in either of us engaging in this debate?



Get it all out in the open. What's been said, why, to whom, who are the real cunts in this sorry mess.



> The above is why I want it binned. The above is why that's most likely where it'll end up.
> 
> Not because anyone on TTG cares what's "revealed" about us over here.



Nope - I don't buy it. You want it binned because you KNOW I've got a good point here and you're too scared to address it.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> why should anyone bother attempting to 'justify' anything to a bul;lshitting little no mark like you?



You're clearly so angry all your punctuation is going funny.

Trot along back to your secret forum, kid, come back with someone who can address the issues like a man.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Fuck this - time for a poll I think.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> I tell you what - you lobby the editor for open access to the DJ/party forums, then we'll talk, eh?


There are no secret DJ forums. There are no secret party forums.

There is, however, one Offline forum which has to be private because it:
(a) saves me the bother of PMing every DJ to see if they're available
(b) lets DJs discuss their availability and preferences for future events
(c) is a handy place to exchange details of acts that we'd like to book - seeing as some of the contact details are private, it wouldn't be appropriate to have this information on public view
(d) offers a quiet place to discuss problems with current venues and possibilities for new venues (again, this is best kept private, particularly if we're discussing unpleasant rumours about venues).

Anyone who takes part in the organising of Offline is free to join the forum. There is no gossip, tittle-tattle and back-stabbing. In fact, there's only about one post a day on average.

How does that compare with other secret forums?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2006)

<oh: I've just come in and seen the ten zillion reported posts. I've got a deadline to write so I'll get back to them shortly.

In the meantime, will people PLEASE chill out?>


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How does that compare with other secret forums?


That would be telling.


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> <oh: I've just come in and seen the ten zillion reported posts.



There's a surprise - all of them tollinggang members no doubt!!

Just had a very VERY interesting PM...


----------



## Wowbagger (Jan 30, 2006)




----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

Bunch of cunts.

kea
Head Girl

Post subject: 	   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
uh, not particularly happy with pics of people being posted without their consent; at least meanoldman is here to say whether he objects or not, william isn't.Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:39 pm
    	*
reallyoldhippy
Junta

*Post subject: 	   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps someone ought to post up a pic of Ern. Then we can all be indignant. Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:37 pm
    	*
picnnix
lumpen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spud posting: 

I have met William of Walworth in real life too and he is a likeable man, a lot more relaxed in real life than he sometimes is on bulletin boards. 

Please take his picture down.Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:59 pm
    	*
Oxpecker
Junta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
IntoStella wrote:
..And I can't understand a bloody word most of these threads are about.    

Have I slipped into an alternative universe? 

Hooray, welcome back. 

I've missed you Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:12 pm
    	*
Oxpecker
Junta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
picnnix wrote:
Spud posting: 

I have met William of Walworth in real life too and he is a likeable man, a lot more relaxed in real life than he sometimes is on bulletin boards. 

Please take his picture down.

You're right he's a nice enough bloke in real life, but he has posted his own picture over the road and it's not as if his real name is attached. So I don't see the problem. 

But if curious (is that his name here?) asks for it to be taken down, fair enough.Tue Jan 03, 2006 9:19 pm
    	*
meanoldman
Junta

-------------------------------------------------------
kea wrote:
uh, not particularly happy with pics of people being posted without their consent; at least meanoldman is here to say whether he objects or not, william isn't.
I'm also not happy with that picture being posted, nor of photos of my friends being posted. (Don't care about photos of myself, although as arguing tactics go it's pretty poor)Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:57 pm
     	*
pilchardman
honorary head girl

------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fuck is going on here?  

Grow up, people.Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:31 am
    	*
kea
Head Girl

------------------------------------------------------------------------
meanoldman wrote:

I'm also not happy with that picture being posted, nor of photos of my friends being posted. (Don't care about photos of myself, although as arguing tactics go it's pretty poor)

ok i've removed both pics, since you said you're not happy with them being up there.Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:15 am
    	*
butchersapron
Cheka

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other one shouldn't even have been there to remove as i cut it last night. 

I'm utterly sick of almost every thread on here turning into bean this and bean that. It's pathetic and it's making me think this place isn't going to ever develop past this sort of juvenile stuff. Show some self-control for fucks sake.Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:27 am
    	*
oddjob
citizen

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stands up and applauds butchers Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:31 am
    	*
ernestolynch
Site Admin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
butchersapron wrote:
The other one shouldn't even have been there to remove as i cut it last night. 

I'm utterly sick of almost every thread on here turning into bean this and bean that. It's pathetic and it's making me think this place isn't going to ever develop past this sort of juvenile stuff. Show some self-control for fucks sake.

Then maybe some of us won't now that someone with balls from this forum has actually challenged the cunt that is bean over there. All very well acting magnanimous when it's not yourself being ragged.Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:39 am
    	*
butchersapron
Cheka

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnamity has got fuck all to do with it - just don't turn every thread you (and swarthy) are on into one about him or people will soon be leaving. You're doing the same as him. 

I'm moving this for now as well.Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:40 am
    	*
ernestolynch
Site Admin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
butchersapron wrote:
Magnamity has got fuck all to do with it - just don't turn every thread you (and swarthy) are on into one about him or people will soon be leaving. You're doing the same as him. 

I'm moving this for now as well.

There's NO WAY you'd sit on your hands if some cunt was going 'ba this ba that' and you couldn't reply back.Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:43 am
    	*
butchersapron
Cheka

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't do what you're doing and end up fucking this forum up. Do you really give a fuck if william is trying to savage you? It's not like he can draw blood or is any good at it is it? As it is he's digging his own hole over there as well and pissing people off left right and centre. 

And it's balls that each mention of him from you is a direct reply to one of his - you bring him up out of nowhere often enough.

Last edited by butchersapron on Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:54 am
------------------------------------------------------------------------

THERE'S your fucking proof - you LYING bunch of CUNTS.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 30, 2006)

As I said on the binned thread


The problem with the tolling gang (IMHO) is that a couple of the usual suspects have been allowed to disrupt debate, stir it up and generally set a (sometimes) nasty tone. No one else seems willing to deal with them, in fact some people seem to suck up to them. Its all a bit sad, teenage and pathetic really (on all sides). Shame, there could be some good debate to be had.

*shrugs*


----------



## Callie (Jan 30, 2006)

to me that sounds like a load of people from here saying 'oi stop calling people from urban names and posting up pictures, its pointless, stop it' doesnt it??


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2006)

pk what the fuck?

"Miss, Miss, Jane and Annie are talking about me."

"Then just ignore them Johnny."

Also, what you posted more or less proves that not everyone was happy with the posting of pictures and dissecting of urbanites, so your problem is with individuals surely, not with the entire forum?


----------



## pk (Jan 30, 2006)

oisleep
Mainline Baby Squad

*Post subject: should we tell general posters about the files' existence?	   


meanoldman wrote:
oisleep wrote:
not having a dig, i'm just getting confused with everything 
The decision on u75 threads as far I understand it is that they are banned* for everyone other than junta members (and swarthy), who are allowed to discuss u75 but only in the files. 

* Or at least strongly discouraged in the same way as totty pictures in a context dependent manner, so posting 'there is something interesting stuff on the transformation problem in this thread on u75' on the Law of Value thread is going to be fine, but starting a thread slagging of Wookey isn't.

ok, so is this decision to be communicated to ordinary members, i.e. they can't talk about u75* but we (and swarthy) can? or are we just going to tell ordinary members that no one is allowed to talk about u75* and hide it from them, i don't find either of those alternatives that attractive 

edit: not aimed at MOM, just general questionFri Jan 06, 2006 2:13 pm
    	*
ernestolynch
Site Admin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye old boss now meet the new boss.Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:15 pm
    	*
reallyoldhippy
Junta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
oisleep wrote:
i.e. they can't talk about u75* ?That's not what we decided though, is it? Following a democratic decision we can expect the Junta (plus swarthy) to confine their anti-U75 stuff to the files. Ordinary posters should be discouraged from full-scale slaggings and threads dedicated to that will not be tolerated. But I don't think anybody has suggested that all mentions of U75 or allusions to it should be banned. Context!Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:22 pm
    	*
oisleep
Mainline Baby Squad

------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's what the asterix next to u75 meant 

edit: eitehr way doesn't detract from the point i was making that's it is one rule on u75 discussion for junta members and one for non-junta members, i don't really care that much about the topic of u75 in itself, i was asking however how this set of rules would be communicated to general members, which i believe is the reason for these discussions of late, i.e. how are decisions communicated to general membersFri Jan 06, 2006 2:22 pm
    	*
reallyoldhippy
Junta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
oisleep wrote:
that's what the asterix next to u75 meantI don't understand your problem, then.  

I think it is not necessary to open up our discussions to all, just our decisions. Otherwise there is no point to the junta and we'll go down the Dissensus route.
Last edited by reallyoldhippy on Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:29 pm; edited 1 time in totalFri Jan 06, 2006 2:25 pm
    	*
oisleep
Mainline Baby Squad

------------------------------------------------------------------------
see edit aboveFri Jan 06, 2006 2:26 pm
    	*
ernestolynch
Site Admin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
It still seems pretty english to prevent people from talking about whatever they want. The way the 'Flounce' thread was jumped upon by officials, makes us look paranoid and neurotic. If the commoners aren't allowed to talk about what they want, unless us lords decide to grant them special privileges, wont they get a bit aggrieved? 

Prohibition of mentions/discussion of arselick, beans and dredlocks should also mean that mentions of other messageboards like libcom, guardian, UKLN, and Revo are banned as well.Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:28 pm
    	*
oisleep
Mainline Baby Squad

------------------------------------------------------------------------
reallyoldhippy wrote:

I think it is not necessary to open up our discussions to all, just our decisions. Otherwise there is no point to the junta and we'll go down the Dissensus route.

but this isn't opening up discussions to all, it's a decsion that's been made (which involves one rule for one set of posters on these boards and one set for another), i am asking how it will be communicated, i'm sorry if i'm not making myself very clearFri Jan 06, 2006 2:30 pm
    	*
reallyoldhippy
Junta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
oisleep wrote:
i am asking how it will be communicated,"The purpose of these forums is not to slag off other boards. Any threads dedicated to or dominated by that will be removed."Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:35 pm
    	*
oisleep
Mainline Baby Squad

------------------------------------------------------------------------
......except when posted by junta members (and swarthy) in the files" 

that is my question, will this part above (which is a decision that has been made) be communicated to general members?Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:44 pm


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2006)

This is doing my head in.

pk banned for 48 hours for stirring up board wars.

Lots to think about elsewhere too....


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2006)

Wow pk, you've proved your point! Now I'm really worried! 

So there are some embittered ex-urbanites on TTG who like to vent their spleen in private - why the fuck should I care?

Are you smoking a lot at the moment?


----------



## tollbar (Jan 30, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> pk what the fuck?
> 
> "Miss, Miss, Jane and Annie are talking about me."
> 
> ...



Exactly, whats the story.  Some people with longstanding issues with some other people develop the usual bulletin board problem of thinking that the whole universe revolves around the feud and take it to extreme lengths and then get pulled up by the people who are less obsessed.  Its a bit like Galloway blowing the events on CBB out of all proportion.  Its what happens in enclosed worlds.

This thread should have been binned long ago.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Wow pk, you've proved your point! Now I'm really worried!
> 
> So there are some embittered ex-urbanites on TTG who like to vent their spleen in private - why the fuck should I care?
> 
> Are you smoking a lot at the moment?



Just ask yourself how you'd feel if pictures of you, without your knowledge or consent, had being posted up ... somewhere?? ..... on another forum (have no idea whether, within that site, it was the alleged 'secret' forum or not).

Last time that happened to me was on a  BNP-connected website, about 2 or 3 years ago.

I also have no idea what else is going on over there generally, but if flimsier's general attitude towards me is any guide at all, it isn't nice. I've been assured  by someone I trust that I've not been systematically badmouthed, but to be honest, I don't know what to believe at the moment.

The fact that pk is raising this here in a REALLY counterproductive fashion, doesn't mean that there MAY not be some sort of case to answer ....

<edit to add> it would apear that Oxpecker and one or two others argued for my picture's removal, good for em. But I'm a bit short on detail concerning all this generally. Dosn't look good though ...


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

well, if nothing else we know that urban and ttg just can't be friends as long as at least one or two long time posters here and at least one of the admin there are determined to keep it going.  tbh, i can see pk's point, it would certainly piss me off but fuck it, it's not worth it.  this place has been a damn sight better since o'lynch and his bunch of cronies pissed off and it suddenly became possible to have a fucking debate without neckshots, limepits, sneering classism and bullshit personality arguments getting in the way.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> this place has been a damn sight better since o'lynch and his bunch of cronies pissed off and it suddenly became possible to have a fucking debate without neckshots, limepits, sneering classism and bullshit personality arguments getting in the way.



Watch what you say about ern now. You'll be leapt on by several TTGites saying how unfair it is to criticise him when he has no right of reply ...


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

i couldn't give a fuck tbh.  i'm sure he hasn't got anything nice to say about me either.


----------



## easy g (Jan 30, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Just ask yourself how you'd feel if pictures of you, without your knowledge or consent, had being posted up ... somewhere??



doesn't that happen all the time on u75 events and on the PRoD pages etc...

there are pics of me there which I didn't sanction.....and sure as hell some people from here could identify me to others...

I'm sure if I was bothered they'd take them down....thing is if I didn't know they were there then I wouldn't know I'd have to ask...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

I think you miss the point easy. Being shall we say a tad paranoid at times (and not always for no reason!  ) I'm more concerned about what the PURPOSE of posting my pic up at TTG was , more than it being dne at all.

If people are saying possibly unflattering things about you, and the pic is being used as a hook to hang such chat on, then it ain't nice.

I know for a fact that (a maximum of) two or three people over there absolutely destest me, and I've no real idea why. It puts me off wanting to post there at present.

PK has very probably exaggerated his allegations, and he certainly went about making them in a very counterproductive and in the end banworthy way, but that doesn't mean he's ENTIRELY devoid of any point, even if you discount for bias a lot of what he's saying ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

easy g said:
			
		

> doesn't that happen all the time on u75 events and on the PRoD pages etc...
> 
> there are pics of me there which I didn't sanction.....and sure as hell some people from here could identify me to others...
> 
> *I'm sure if I was bothered they'd take them down....thing is if I didn't know they were there then I wouldn't know I'd have to ask...*



To be fair, it would appear people over at TTG have argued against the presence of my pix, and argued to remove them, plus in Oxpecker's case said nice things ... 

But the whole point remains the purpose of the pix being posted.

Pix of people at a party on a party photo archive or wherever -- no malice involved, and those responsible at either Urban or PROD will remove them if requested anyway.

Pix of people against whom a minority of TTGers appear to hold a longstanding dislike, and when the motive for posting them is unclear, and when you only get to know of them quite a while later, and you have limited knowledge of the surrounding discussion  -- not the same ...


----------



## easy g (Jan 30, 2006)

principle is essentially the same though...unsanctioned photos put into the public domain..


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

it's about context when a pic is posted.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 30, 2006)

easy g said:
			
		

> principle is essentially the same though...unsanctioned photos put into the public domain..



How is it the same?  Its not remotely the same.


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

agree with blagsta, when i got to a RL event and tehre are photos taken of me they are by friends of mine and i know that i can ask them to take them down, and the rule here is that you aren't allowed to identify anyone without their permission, although i don't think that has ever needed testing.  if one of those pictures was subsequently being used elsewhere to make me the butt of jokes or threats or i dunno, knowing ern i-can-tell-you-your-class-by-the-colour-of-your-hair, then who do i ask to take it down.  do i need to register, join the junta, and put in a formal complaint.  will someone there stand up for me?  

it's all very silly IMO. and whoever brought pie-eye into it is a fucking scumbag.  there was no need for that whatsoever.  was tehre any punishment meted out can someone tell me?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

Yes, the context is different altogether.

Pix of me appear on the PROD website. Thats fine, because PROD website doesn't have amongst its moderators at least one, maybe two, people who have a pretty marked dislike for me and have done for ages ... it's my lack of knowledge of whether the pix ad any associated comemnts were or weren't used to further some grudge.

Admittedly most of the moderators there I have no problem with 

This baked bean business over there entirely mystifies me, but I have quite a strong suspicion I may have some connection to it. It appears to be a running joke, that's objected to by at least one moderator over there, but I know nothing ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 30, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> whoever brought pie-eye into it is a fucking scumbag.  there was no need for that whatsoever.  was tehre any punishment meted out can someone tell me?



Agreed, that really did shock me, my pic appearing pales into insignificance compared to that. Bang out of order.

<edit to add> I'm currently in PM contact with another Urbanite who's also over there, so I don't want to further heighten any bad feeling ... 

Had a look over there too, while Urban was down. Little to report ...


----------



## oisleep (Jan 30, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> I put his name in my tagline at about 4am for about 4 seconds, then thought better of it because I'm not of the same lowlife ilk as he is.



bollox, i saw it and i've never been up at 4am for years


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> bollox, i saw it and i've never been up at 4am for years



oh well, if pk really did put ern's name in his tagline that makes everything ok then.  some of your lot are as determined to keep board wars going as he is and if you try and say otherwise you're a bloody liar.


----------



## oisleep (Jan 30, 2006)

merely taking him to task, he lied about putting it up for 4 secs at 4am - i point this out, and somehow i'm the villian in the peace?

i have no desire to discuss anything with you anyway


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

well excuse me.  i'm merely pointing out that contrary to what people on both sides may be claiming there isn't one whiter than white bunch of posters.  if you're going to take that attitude you can fuck yourself and piss off back up ern's arse.


----------



## oisleep (Jan 30, 2006)

i wasn't taking sides at all bluestreak, i pointed out a statement made by PK which was false, i didn't add anything else to this, you then decided to jump in and link the issue that i pointed out to something else, you did that, not i - get your facts straight

and if you can't engage in discourse without resorting to crude statements then i pity you dearly


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 30, 2006)

then why'd you bloody well bring up something that others had already taken him to task over hours after it had started to die down and then announce that you didn't intend to discuss it.  no-one gets to have the last word on the internet, remember.  i think you'd have responded the same if it had been the otehr way round.  and indeed, edited to add, that using advertising of the tolling gang in your tagline is clearly a statement of taking sides don't you think?


----------



## oisleep (Jan 31, 2006)

because i don't have access to urban during the day, does that mean i'm excluded from here at times when i do have access just because i don't happen to be here 24/7?

PK first of all denied that he never posted up ern's real name, then when found out on it, he lied again and said he only posted it up for 4 secs, that is not something that i will just let pass by when i read it, what you make of that i care not a jot

yes i am advertising the tolling gang, is that illegal?

and if i am taking sides why then, only a few weeks ago, did i go to the bother of running a lottery which raised over £150 for _<ed: real name removed>_ server fund, and gave another £150 in prizes to urban 75 posters, yeah what a partisan i am eh


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> yes i am advertising the tolling gang, is that illegal?


1. Do not post up my real name.
2. No ads in user tags please. Please read the FAQ for general info about urban75's advertising policy. Thanks.


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 31, 2006)

well, i'll allow the first point and last points (although you started runnig the lottery well before TTG was set up so i could argue ), but the second had already been made, which somehow makes it look like you were resurrecting the argument.  it's pissing me off at the moment that there are people who seem to be taking sides and taking potshots left right and centre at either urban or ttg, rather than dealing with those causing trouble on their preferred board.  starting again when pk has already been banned seems like trying to get it going again, do you not see where i'm coming from?

regarding advertising i think maybe you should read the thread about taglines in community.  that's all i'm saying the amtter regarding legality!  but it seems provocative to say the least.  everyone around here knows of the tolling gang now, and in the current atmosphere it does seem partisan - as reading that thread will reveal lots of people think it is.

so you can see my point i hope.

i'm going for a cuppa and then bed.  you may have the last word if you wish.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> agree with blagsta, when i got to a RL event and tehre are photos taken of me they are by friends of mine and i know that i can ask them to take them down, and the rule here is that you aren't allowed to identify anyone without their permission, although i don't think that has ever needed testing. * if one of those pictures was subsequently being used elsewhere to make me the butt of jokes or threats or i dunno, knowing ern i-can-tell-you-your-class-by-the-colour-of-your-hair, then who do i ask to take it down.  do i need to register, join the junta, and put in a formal complaint.  will someone there stand up for me?  *
> it's all very silly IMO. and whoever brought pie-eye into it is a fucking scumbag.  there was no need for that whatsoever.  was tehre any punishment meted out can someone tell me?



I honestly don't think anyone would want to reproduce one of those pictures that make you feel as though you are well known and part of the set  or make you the butt of any jokes due to the fact that very few people know who you are or want to. Those that do have used the phrases 'lightweight' 'insignificant ' and 'easily led'.

As you will have only heard about the last issue through rumour I suggest you refrain from making any firm judgements  or trying to get in on the act.

Quite a few of us are still happy to post on both boards and have friends on both boards and have no interest in maintaining a climate of tension or heightening distrust.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 31, 2006)

i wasn't going to post any more, but i saw this:




			
				pk said:
			
		

> Where's bristleKRS?
> 
> He's one of the few people I'd actually believe... none of you lot are capable of giving a straight answer without wriggling or getting abusive to try and get this thread binned.



well, i was where i always - ready and willing to answer any questions or queries or concerns or complaints. but instead of coming to me, you started posting up inflammatory stuff which is to the benefit of neither u75 or ttg. why you did it, i have no idea, certainly not given our pm exchanges.

if you have anything to say to me or to ask of me, you will have to email it to me when you come back off your (deserved) ban. as editor has repeatedly made clear, urban75 is not the place to be discussing tolling gang. that you manage to get away with this sort of infantile stirring for so long before you were given yet another tempban is beyond me, but there you go.

can i make an appeal to everybody to calm down?

urban75 posters who do not like tolling gang: you do not have to go there or post there.

tolling gang posters who do not like urban75: you do not have to come here or post here.

urban75 posters who are also tolling gang posters: you do not have to choose between the two, and i ask *everyone* to respect that. the two boards are different places with different atmospheres and different rules.

to anyone taking puerile delight in stirring things up, i say this: these are *real people's live* you are fucking around with. perhaps you had better grow up a little bit, and ask yourself whether trying to set friend against friend - for the sake of a pair of bloody bulletin boards - is really behaviour becoming of a grown adult.


----------



## oisleep (Jan 31, 2006)

hear hear!

let's move on


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> urban75 posters who do not like tolling gang: you do not have to go there or post there.
> 
> tolling gang posters who do not like urban75: you do not have to come here or post here.
> 
> ...



I agree with all this.

I hope notice is being taken of it on *both* sides, I'm certainly paying attention to it.

Emphasis deliberate because in one sense bluestreak is right -- pk was out of order to rise all this in such an inflammatory fashion and his ban was inevitable really -- but that doesn't mean he automatically lacks any genuine concerns.

Just as Urbanites have behaved far from impeccably at times, and I'm not any kind of shining innocent here or anything, there are ALSO a very small number of people over at TTG who have been making lives difficult for THAT forum (as a consequence of their provocative antics), and thoroughly pissed people off here too.

ETA : Krs, as I posted yesterday, I wouldn't be at all surprised if pk has been exaggerating his issues with TTG, and the way he went about raising all this was certainly really provocative (and banworthy). 

But IMO, that kind of behaviour has given one or two peoplle the excuse to assume (not that they weren't assuming it already!) that fault for inter-forum bad feeling lies only on one side, and that no TTGite has any case to answer at all, which as you make clear above (admirably evenhandedly IMO) simply isn't the case.

Sticking my oar in a little, if it was my business (which it isn't  ) I'd want to make it damn clear to all concerned that what's discussed in private on the Junta forum among the TTG mods is absolutely above board, and that it doesn't gain any kind of reputation (even if only _partly_ accurately) as a shitstirring area where pix are gratuitously posted, incursions over here are planned, longstanding abusiveness and insultingness and to and grudges about particular Urbanites are gratuiitously indulged in, etc.

If your Junta is nothing at all like this then cool. But I'm understandably somewhat suspicious at the moment -- you know yourself how some TTGites seem to be under the impression that I'm a lot more responsible for bannings from here than I am. I seem to been thoroughly and unfairly and above all inaccurately (and without any right of reply!) blamed for longstanding grievances held by _one or two_ TTGites. Indeed I have, at times, been followed round this forum over past weeks and months to be dug at and got at along those lines, by at least one person. I'm concerned that my name has been being blackened over at TTG in consequence, by various axe grinders.

Occasional references over there to Urban as 'Arselick' and to me as 'the bean' (whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean!) don't help  -- and that's what I've seen on the PUBLIC forum over there (admittedly by two particular posters) -- but who knows what's going on behind the scene?? 

Reassurances welcomed.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> urban75 posters who are also tolling gang posters: you do not have to choose between the two, and i ask *everyone* to respect that. the two boards are different places with different atmospheres and different rules.


...but that's hardly the case with so many ex-U75 posters _reigning_ there.

The sports forum for instance - I saw there was some discussion whether to add it or not but in the end it was added to your site. The footie forum has always been one of the mainstays of U75 and when I have browsed your site, the threads are almost identical.

From a cursory glance, it's very similar - apart from your hierarchy.

sorry for the later edit: but a book forum with a what are you reading thread


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> oh well, if pk really did put ern's name in his tagline that makes everything ok then.  some of your lot are as determined to keep board wars going as he is and if you try and say otherwise you're a bloody liar.


 There aren't any boards wars to keep going.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> hear hear!
> 
> let's move on


And you think having "censored" in your user tag after you had your FAQ busting advert for the Tolling Gang removed is in the spirit of "moving on", yes?

There's a lot more I'm unhappy about concerning the TG, but I'll leave that for later.

It's very, very _disappointing_ though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

What I find amazing is that a moderator on ttg is at the heart of all this and no one over there wants to tackle him.  The hypocrisy stinks.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> There aren't any boards wars to keep going.



I really hope not, but read my post above -- what am I supposed to think?

ETA -- I don't WANT a board war -- I just want one or two individuals to get off my case, and ideally apologise to me for past harassment (such as the odd abusive PM**) and unpleasantness.

**Not that I've been impeccably behaved myself, but several people know perfectly well where the bulk of responsibility for said nastiness lies

I have no problem with you GL, or with krs, oisleep, many other TTG regulars.

Can I reassure you personally GL, that I had absolutely no involvement (whatever you may have been told) in your temp ban from Urban of last week?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What I find amazing is that a moderator on ttg is at the heart of all this and no one over there wants to tackle him.  The hypocrisy stinks.



Not just the mod in question, but his kneejerk defenders and automatic blamers of his adversaries/targets. Said defence squad -- to whom pk's counterproductive OTTness yesterday provided an ideal excuse -- then sometimes whine about how dare people ever criticise him, 'he has no right of reply here' -- WELL WHO'S FUCKIN' FAULT IS THAT??

Hopefully bristle krs and other TTG mods will take a bit of notice of my long post above though. They're smart and intelligent enough to know the score if they think about it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What I find amazing is that a moderator on ttg is at the heart of all this and no one over there wants to tackle him.  The hypocrisy stinks.


are you, like PK, claiming to have wandered round 'all areas' of TTG?

Have you ever seen editor and any of the other mods have a public disagreement over moderating policy over here?

Have you heard of the concept of a united front?

Can you put two and two together?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> are you, like PK, claiming to have wandered round 'all areas' of TTG?
> 
> Have you ever seen editor and any of the other mods have a public disagreement over moderating policy over here?
> 
> ...


I've no idea what you're on about, I'm afraid.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid at Blagsta said:
			
		

> are you, like PK, claiming to have wandered round 'all areas' of TTG?
> 
> Have you ever seen editor and any of the other mods have a public disagreement over moderating policy over here?
> 
> ...



I know what you're getting at, and I certainly have only seen the public parts of the site, and not all of them. But I stand by what I said essentially.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Bunch of cunts.
> 
> kea
> Head Girl
> ...


errr....am I being stoopid here...or does this look like BA, Kea and MOM showing precisely the sort of control and restraint you'd expect of...welll.... moderators?
what am I missing?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> i wasn't going to post any more, but i saw this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thank fuck someone's talking sense round here....


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I've no idea what you're on about, I'm afraid.


I don't, and wouldn't expect to, see you and Fridge or other mods arguing about policy and it's implementation publicly on here.

Why should it be different on TTG?  that is not to say there aren't 'discussions' about it in one of the other _Secret Forums_.  When you have a 'modding team' of 40+ it is obviously impossible to hold such discussions soley by PM (as I believe you do here), so another forum is _required_.  Nothing goes off in them except discussions about board policy, and dull admin stuff (how do you trace ip addresses kinda malarkey).

(granted, maybe my previous post should have finished 'can you work out twice the square root of minus 1 tho )


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> errr....am I being stoopid here...or does this look like BA, Kea and MOM showing precisely the sort of control and restraint you'd expect of...welll.... moderators?
> what am I missing?


I think we're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't on this one.

I for one wish to continue posting on both boards.  I consider many posters on both boards friends.  This is all getting incredibly silly


----------



## Sunspots (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I for one wish to continue posting on both boards.  I consider many posters on both boards friends.  This is all getting incredibly silly



Seconded.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I don't, and wouldn't expect to, see you and Fridge or other mods arguing about policy and it's implementation publicly on here.
> 
> Why should it be different on TTG?  that is not to say there aren't 'discussions' about it in one of the other _Secret Forums_.  When you have a 'modding team' of 40+ it is obviously impossible to hold such discussions soley by PM (as I believe you do here), so another forum is _required_.  Nothing goes off in them except discussions about board policy, and dull admin stuff (how do you trace ip addresses kinda malarkey).
> 
> (granted, maybe my previous post should have finished 'can you work out twice the square root of minus 1 tho )


It's ridiculous that any of us feel we have to defend TTG's modding policies on another board too.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Nothing goes off in them except discussions about board policy, and dull admin stuff (how do you trace ip addresses kinda malarkey).


Sadly, that doesn't square with what I've been hearing.

Not even _slightly._ 

It's very disappointing and I suspect matters will come to a head soon, but I'm not prepared to discuss it any further right now.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Sadly, that doesn't square with what I've been hearing.
> 
> Not even _slightly._




what have you been hearing then?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Sadly, that doesn't square with what I've been hearing.
> 
> Not even _slightly._


But you haven't seen these area's have you? So, with all respect, how the hell would you know? More guff from pk?  Please.


> It's very disappointing and I suspect matters will come to a head soon, but I'm not prepared to discuss it any further right now.


that sounds unpleasant 

I hope that it will all simply go away and each board can relate to each other simply as they are - two bloody interent boards.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> what have you been hearing then?


Err, "I'm not prepared to discuss it any further right now."


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

missed that bit


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

lets face it

both boards are just pissed off cos thecoolestthingever is better than both of them put together

i hate it when people can't admit they are beaten


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thecoolestthingever  

The monarchy will fall in the end.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> errr....am I being stoopid here...or does this look like BA, Kea and MOM showing precisely the sort of control and restraint you'd expect of...welll.... moderators?
> what am I missing?



It does show that yes.

In response to others behaving less responsibly apparantly. But I appreciate pk's selected snippets (wherever he got them from!) don't present a complete picture.

Still doesn't look good though.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> It's ridiculous that any of us feel we have to defend TTG's modding policies on another board too.



Or the behaviour of any of their mods?

You shouldn't have to do that no. Especially when any behaviour may have been indefensible.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> thank fuck someone's talking sense round here....



Tell that to the people who aren't fully realising the wisdom of bristle krs' words OVER THERE, Jezza.

I appreciate I may need to catch up on one or two things ...


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thecoolestthingever
> 
> The monarchy will fall in the end.



yeah

we pwn wikipedia as well

cunts


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> are you, like PK, claiming to have wandered round 'all areas' of TTG?
> 
> Have you ever seen editor and any of the other mods have a public disagreement over moderating policy over here?
> 
> ...



Bit defensive aren't you?  I go by what I see in the "public" areas.  And I see one of your mods stirring shit and no one willing to tackle him.  Its a shame, you had a chance to have some good boards there.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> errr....am I being stoopid here...or does this look like BA, Kea and MOM showing precisely the sort of control and restraint you'd expect of...welll.... moderators?
> what am I missing?



Respect to them for that.  But you can't deny that there is one particular mod/admin who is stirring it, surely?


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Respect to them for that.  But you can't deny that there is one particular mod/admin who is stirring it, surely?


The puppet master?

He must be loving all this attention.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> The puppet master?



Not quite.  I do wonder though why people I like and respect (kea, krs, ba et al) put up with him.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Bit defensive aren't you?  I go by what I see in the "public" areas.  And I see one of your mods stirring shit and no one willing to tackle him.  Its a shame, you had a chance to have some good boards there.


mebbe i am ,there's some prick (called pk) trying to stir up all sorts of shit, lie about what happens over there, and destroy personal friendships. So, yes, maybe I am being a bit defensive.

My points still stand tho.  And i think we still will have good boards, once a couple of pathetic children grow up a little bit and let sleeping shite lie.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> mebbe i am ,there's some prick (called pk) trying to stir up all sorts of shit, lie about what happens over there, and destroy personal friendships. So, yes, maybe I am being a bit defensive.



You're right, pk's being a prick over this.  So is a certain person over your side of the street.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> My points still stand tho.  And i think we still will have good boards, once a couple of pathetic children grow up a little bit and let sleeping shite lie.



Why did you give one of them mod/admin status ffs?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

he set the frigging thing up for one thing!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

I've just had a look over there, not contributed though.

Someone called 'smokescreen' (presumably with a foot in both camps -- have no idea who it is though!) has made some VERY reasonable points, genuinely aimed at furthering co-operation/co-existence.

He's been all but cold shouldered by one or two..

I know nothing about some of the PMs or personal stuff that appears to have been going on.

The boards in general are OK, but there's definitely some points need seriously addressing. I understand what belboid saying about united front/sorting it out out of the public eye though 

But don't take pk's behaviour, or any other?? shitstirring from anyone else?? on Urban, as an excuse for reckoning there are no problems at all.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> he set the frigging thing up for one thing!



Carte blanche to act like a twat then?

And you've seen what I said about pk above.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> he set the frigging thing up for one thing!



Aaaah, so that's why no one wants to tackle him.  Its his ball and he can take it home.  Very grown up.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

not that he can take it home, but that he deserves some respect for doing so - and finding a way to make use of his...talents..in a more positive way.

Or do you think his creation of new identities over here to live briefly and die in flames is the way ahead?

Anyhow, I think that's my last word on the subject over here, I dont go for any moral high ground bollocks, the air is far too rarified.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Aaaah, so that's why no one wants to tackle him.  Its his ball and he can take it home.  Very grown up.



If you're looking for that kind of behaviour from & towards someone who runs an internet message board, perhaps you should be looking a little closer to home, eh?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Or do you think his creation of new identities over here to live briefly and die in flames is the way ahead?


Having the new boards doesn't seem to have stopped him, and he's not the the only TG mod regularly reregistering under different names to troll/disrupt urban75.

The fact that a handful of such individuals remain free to continue their antics rather undermines TG's 'mission statement' IMO.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> If you're looking for that kind of behaviour from & towards someone who runs an internet message board, perhaps you should be looking a little closer to home, eh?


Please elaborate.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> not that he can take it home, but that he deserves some respect for doing so - and finding a way to make use of his...talents..in a more positive way.



I've paid respect in the past to the achievement of setting up new forums, and I think in general they work well from what limited amount I've seen, with a lot of good discussions. Some of them are not to my taste, for instance the default position held by many that some mythical people known as 'Guardian reading liberals' are worse than Nazis, a style of abuse that inhibits rather than advances genuine debate/discussion. But although I'm glad that kind of pointless shite has declined on Urban now, it's personal to me and in the past has been used against me to target me for unpleasant campaigns of abuse, misrepresentation of my true politcs, and downright lies -- non-'liberal' and pro Trade Unionist/pro Activist though I am, which certain TTGites still seem to refuse to acknowledge or respect. So although all that stops me being as objective about ern as I could, it's a separate issue really.

So yes, even I can see that ern has a big achievement to his credit in setting up TTG, fair enough. It's surely completely in his *own* interest, if he wants to keep it going, to operate ENTIRELY in the spirit of co-operation that krs advocates.

That involves dropping all this 'arselick' wankery, and stopping blaming particular posters here including me ('touts'/'arselickers'/'the baked bean' etc.), , for his original ban from Urban. All these fine words from several TTGites about dropping grudges and stopping these feuds, ring rather hollow when that kind of shite continues from a *key moderator* among others, and usually unchallenged .



> Or do you think his creation of new identities over here to live briefly and die in flames is the way ahead?



You talk like anyone here is advocating it.



> Anyhow, I think that's my last word on the subject over here, I dont go for any moral high ground bollocks, the air is far too rarified.



You appear to think blame for all this rests entirely on one side though, even when people who are fully critical of pk's antics have also raised their concerns. Concerns that can't just be dismissed.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> If you're looking for that kind of behaviour from & towards someone who runs an internet message board, perhaps you should be looking a little closer to home, eh?



Come on, say what you mean!  If you mean our ed here, no I don't always agree with his decisions or moderating but he most certainly doesn't behave in the way that ern does over there.  Anyway, even if he did, so what?  Do two wrongs make a right?  Or have you got your tongue so far up ern's arse that he can do no wrong in your eyes?  Why?  Are you scared of him?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> If you're looking for that kind of behaviour from & towards someone who runs an internet message board, perhaps you should be looking a little closer to home, eh?



You're just completely in denial that anything at all might be wrong over there, aren't you?

If you want to talk about faults/problems at Urban, then that's perfectly possible, you might even find I and other members of 'Arselick'  *agree* on on one or two  of those criticisms.

But you're just avoiding the main point now ...


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Are you scared of him?


Terrified.   

Time elapsed between my last post & editor's intervention: 2 minutes.

Time elapsed between pk starting his shit & the first moderator's intervention: exactly 15 hours.

Time pk was allowed to post his shite before banning: 18 hours 13 minutes.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Terrified.
> 
> Time elapsed between my last post & editor's intervention: 2 minutes.
> 
> ...



Which proves...what exactly?   

All I can see it proving is that you're intent on stirring it for some bizarre reason.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Terrified.
> 
> Time elapsed between my last post & editor's intervention: 2 minutes.
> 
> ...



Perhaps pk is smarter at timing his interventions to coincide with editor's absence. I don't know this, just speculating.

In any case, alongside all the OTT stirring and counterproductive troublemaking from pk, he *also* had the gist of some (possibly) valid points to raise. Agreed, the way he chose to do it was out of order really. I also agree his ban was inevitable and deserved, and that he was almost certainly exaggerating and distorting much of what he knew. Doesn't mean TTG is necessarily free of problems of its own though, and I'm only an outside, non participating observer!

I've tried to make these points too, more reasonably, adorned with as small amount of abuse as I could manage.

And in agreement, largely, with krs' post earlier.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Time elapsed between my last post & editor's intervention: 2 minutes.


Ah! The numbers game!

Time elapsed between Junta members trolling urban75 and ban: still waiting,  months later.

Number of TG Junta members banned for trolling urban75: none (afaik)

Number of times that a TG Junta member tried to register _in a single day:_ seven times.

Number of urban75 mods who have registered at TG under different names to troll: none

See the difference?


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Number of urban75 mods who have registered at TG under different names to troll: none



woflie....  

woflie was self confessed troll on TG - who ya reckon that was!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Respect to them for that.  But you can't deny that there is one particular mod/admin who is stirring it, surely?


no, I certainly don't. however, is that not a pointer to the virtue of collective modding? the 'team' over-riding the odd loose cannon?
 oh fuck it, cards up front. we are talking about ern. no point in coyness here.
points;
1) I actually enjoyed ern's posts here. when he wasn't arsing about, he was a bloody good poster, and the most terrifyingly good swappie-kicker I've ever seen (better, IMHo than BA). 
2) compared to the sorta shite he used to get up to here, he's been a model of restraint over there
3) his stirring there is pretty small beer. PK has stirred it much more here, and I would actually like to ask him why he did so, because it is upsetting and annoying.
4) again - that's the point of collective decision making


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Not quite.  I do wonder though why people I like and respect (kea, krs, ba et al) put up with him.




imo it's because he gets them to feel that he really rates and respects them, that they're "in on it" in some way, not like the "others".  It's a kind of charisma, though not one that I'm fooled by myself either on the net or in IRL.  It tends to strike me as pure manipulation rather than anything else.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

MysteryGuest said:
			
		

> It tends to strike me as pure manipulation rather than anything else.


Weird, innit.

I think ern's some kind of AI - anyone actually met him IRL? 

edit: I think _it_ picked its targets well tho' - show them a little bit and... <snap>


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

he's an evil evil man


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> no, I certainly don't. however, is that not a pointer to the virtue of collective modding? the 'team' over-riding the odd loose cannon?
> oh fuck it, cards up front. we are talking about ern. no point in coyness here.
> points;
> 1) I actually enjoyed ern's posts here. when he wasn't arsing about, he was a bloody good poster, and the most terrifyingly good swappie-kicker I've ever seen (better, IMHo than BA).



I don't think he was a good poster.  His politics are very very conservative and ill informed IMO.




			
				Red Jezza said:
			
		

> 2) compared to the sorta shite he used to get up to here, he's been a model of restraint over there



He's put off me and others from posting.




			
				Red Jezza said:
			
		

> 3) his stirring there is pretty small beer. PK has stirred it much more here, and I would actually like to ask him why he did so, because it is upsetting and annoying.
> 4) again - that's the point of collective decision making



Sorry Jezza, no.  Why are you defending him?  Why do you let him get away with being a cunt?  What do you have to gain?  What do you owe him?  I don't get it.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Weird, innit.
> 
> I think ern's some kind of AI - anyone actually met him IRL?




Believe it or not...  William says he met him briefly at a beer festival once.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> 1) I actually enjoyed ern's posts here. when he wasn't arsing about, he was a bloody good poster, and the most terrifyingly good swappie-kicker I've ever seen (better, IMHo than BA)



Don't disagree, shame he diluted the effect by targetting and attacking decent lefties/radicals/activists/trade unionists (and teachers of over twenty years experience  ) as well, and thoroughly distorting and misrepresenting their politics. All this shite about 'liberals'/'Guardian reading racists' etc. 



> 2) compared to the sorta shite he used to get up to here, he's been a model of restraint over there



As far as you know. But yes, in *public* that's true. But what about these 'small beer' buzz words such as 'Arselick' and 'the baked bean' -- which no-one ever seems to take issue with in the public threads -- utterly pathetic.



> 3) his stirring there is pretty small beer. PK has stirred it much more here, and I would actually like to ask him why he did so, because it is upsetting and annoying.



As counterproductivity goes, that was quite an object lesson!! Counterproductive, because it gives scope for many to attack him (deserved) yet ignore the actual issues he raised (which those issues didn't deserve). And he DID raise some actual issues underneath all the stirring.



> 4) again - that's the point of collective decision making



Collective respect to the founder you mean, more like. Not all of it deserved (but see also my earlier post).


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

MysteryGuest said:
			
		

> Believe it or not...  William says he met him briefly at a beer festival once.


Emphasis on the *beer* bit, hey 

So William's the only known person to have met Mr O'Lynch...

<updates files>


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Emphasis on the *beer* bit, hey
> 
> So William's the only known person to have met Mr O'Lynch...
> 
> <updates files>



Yep, he's nice and unassuming bloke in real life. Stig met him too. But he only met us for about five or ten minutes max ...


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Yep, he's nice and unassuming bloke in real life. Stig met him too. But he only met us for about five or ten minutes max ...




I'm quite shocked.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think he was a good poster.  His politics are very very conservative and ill informed IMO.



He was a better historian than he was a politician, but I don't completely agree with that in all cases -- sometimes his politics were OK. (Not when he was on about crime and punishment/law and order related issues mind). Just that his attacks were far more often than not aimed at the wrong targets.



> He's put off me and others from posting.



Yes, definitely something for TTG to think about. Not that 'our' absence is any kind of bother for them no doubt, but there are plenty with politics and attitudes and thoughts that could well fir in over there very well, and the antics of ern and other is putting off anyone who knows about them ...



> Sorry Jezza, no.  Why are you defending him?  Why do you let him get away with being a cunt?  What do you have to gain?  What do you owe him?  I don't get it.



Good questions IMO ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> I'm quite shocked.



So were we!!


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Collective respect to the boss you mean, more like.



william thats the kind of sneering you claim to dislike. That you think any of us are beholden to ern's thoughts, wishes and actions is quite frankly insulting not to mention absurd.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> woflie was self confessed troll on TG - who ya reckon that was!


Seeing as he immediately announced who he was and would argue that he was most definitely not trolling, it's hardly the same.

What do you think about one of your fellow Junta members being so desperate to troll here that they tried to register _seven times in a single day?_

Is that seen as acceptable behaviour amongst the hierarchy at the TG because he wasn't banned, afaik?


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> What do you think about one of your fellow Junta members being so desperate to troll here that they tried to register _seven times in a single day?_
> 
> Is that seen as acceptable behaviour amongst the hierarchy at the TG because he wasn't banned, afaik?


(a) How would anyone else on TTG know that someone had done that? and

(b) AFAIK it's not TTG policy to ban posters because of how they behave elsewhere on the internet.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> william thats the kind of sneering you claim to dislike. That you think any of us are beholden to ern's thoughts, wishes and actions is quite frankly insulting not to mention absurd.



I've changed 'boss' to 'founder' now, in the other post (before I saw your post, but yes, 'boss' was going a little far on my part).

Look, I do recognise that there's a collective of TTG moderators, and that most of them want the best in terms of non hostility between the boards. If it looked like I was implying everyone was mindlessly agreeing with ern, then thats not right -- what I was really questioning was that he has been getting up to some dodgy antics since TTG was set up (as belboid seemed to admit as far as the incursions over here are concerned) and that he appears to have a loose rein in being able to plough his own furrow. And there HAVE been people (on here) who've immediately leapt to his defence whenever his name is criticised.

It's also that Blags, me and a few others find it hard to understand why his
bizarre behaviour carries on _seemingly_ unchallenged and uncriticised (perhaps part of ignoring as a deliberate strategy, I don't know enough about the forum dynamics, only going on what I've seen, which doesn't include the Junta forum).

His presence plus that of a very small number of others, wins TTG few friends and limits the potential number of new members IMO.

You might say the same of Urban and some posters here, but they're not mods, and Urban is so much bigger that their behaviour is less obvious.

Oh, and as far as 'sneering' is concerned, I've had much more than my fair share aimed my way.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> (a) How would anyone else on TTG know that someone had done that? and
> 
> (b) AFAIK it's not TTG policy to ban posters because of how they behave elsewhere on the internet.



So trying to start a board war isn't a disciplinary offense?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> (a) How would anyone else on TTG know that someone had done that? and



Because plenty of them still post over here, and see the effects??



> (b) AFAIK it's not TTG policy to ban posters because of how they behave elsewhere on the internet.



Even if it heightens inter-forum tensions and unpleasantness and suspicion?

Not claiming Urbanites including me are faultless or anything, but you know the score.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So trying to start a board war isn't a disciplinary offense?



They'll level that charge at PK, but to ignore others closer to their home seemingly doing the same thing would be foolish IMO ...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Because plenty of them still post over here, and see the effects??


I post over here, but how am I supposed to know which trolls are allegedly from TG?  Every troll that turns up here is accused of being Ern.  I really don't see how we can control how TG posters behave outside of TG.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I post over here, but how am I supposed to know which trolls are allegedly from TG?


Just for the record, are you denying that members of TG have openly boasted of trolling and/or trying to stir up trouble on urban75 from those boards?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think he was a good poster.  His politics are very very conservative and ill informed IMO.


I meant more his debating skills. when he stopped the fannying about, he was extremely sharp. As regards his politics, I follow the OTHER revolutionary socialist tradition, so i'm hardly likely to vote tankie!
as for 'ill-informed and conservative' - how so?



> He's put off me and others from posting.


If that is so I am extremely unhappy to hear it.



> Sorry Jezza, no.  Why are you defending him?  Why do you let him get away with being a cunt?  What do you have to gain?  What do you owe him?  I don't get it.


now come on here, I don't owe ern anything. quite  a lot of relatively sound posters (Past caring, pickman's, BA etc) liked ern's posts, so it isn't unreasonable of me to feel that way. 
It's not up to me to 'let him get away' with anything - he can't here, and he's el grande mod there, so I can't be an influence either side. 
I'm not so much as defending him as putting the other POV, and trying to put this in balance and perspective. he could be a nasty little sod, but could also be sound, and I had and will continue to have respect for him


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I post over here, but how am I supposed to know which trolls are allegedly from TG?  Every troll that turns up here is accused of being Ern.  I really don't see how we can control how TG posters behave outside of TG.


IP addresses?

Control? The fact is that most TG posters (judging from the most online of 51)  are from U75 so they should exhibit a bit of self-control.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Emphasis on the *beer* bit, hey
> 
> So William's the only known person to have met Mr O'Lynch...
> 
> <updates files>


ummm...you're forgetting flimsier and editor


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> ummm...you're forgetting flimsier and editor


Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So trying to start a board war isn't a disciplinary offense?


I'm not aware of anyone from TTG who has the slightest interest in trying to start a board war.  

If (and it's a big if IMO) someone who posts on TTG is sad and obsessed enough to try and register on U75 seven times in one day, then that person has a problem which is nothing to do with TTG.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> If (and it's a big if IMO) someone who posts on TTG is sad and obsessed enough to try and register on U75 seven times in one day, then that person has a problem which is nothing to do with TTG.


Even if they're a TTG mod?


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> If someone who posts on TTG is sad and obsessed enough to try and register on U75 seven times in one day, then that person has a problem which is nothing to do with TTG.



And what if they're a mod and perhaps the bloke who set up/maintained the TTG boards?

Wouldn't that seem to have a bearing on his suitability to be in such a position on TTG? Hardly suggests that someone isn't trying to stir up a board war does it?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> I'm not aware of anyone from TTG who has the slightest interest in trying to start a board war.


Really?!! Are you sure about that?






			
				fat hamster said:
			
		

> If (and it's a big if IMO) someone who posts on TTG is sad and obsessed enough to try and register on U75 seven times in one day, then that person has a problem which is nothing to do with TTG.


Even when they're a mod?!!!


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Just for the record, are you denying that members of TG have openly boasted of trolling and/or trying to stir up trouble on urban75 from those boards?


I can say for certain that I don't know who trolls are.  If people from TG are trolling here they haven't told me about it.

Oh, except someone got banned the other day (don't remember who, there was a spate of them on one thread) and reregistered under another name and was caught...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really?!! Are you sure about that?Even when they're a mod?!!!


So who was this, and when was it?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I can say for certain that I don't know who trolls are.  If people from TG are trolling here they haven't told me about it.


Really? That rather contradicts what I've been hearing.

Oh well the truth will out soon, I expect.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really? That rather contradicts what I've been hearing.
> 
> Oh well the truth will out soon, I expect.


And what exactly have you heard?  I'm in cahoots with some trolls?

I like both boards, I wish to continue posting on both and want no trouble.  If you have evidence of someone from TG trolling here I'll certainly be happy to raise the issue with the rest of the junta.


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I like both boards, .




Lucky you, I can't access the one all the fuss is about because they won't let me in. (No confirmation of registration so I can't even log on and that was weeks ago).


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> I'm not aware of anyone from TTG who has the slightest interest in trying to start a board war.
> 
> If (and it's a big if IMO) someone who posts on TTG is sad and obsessed enough to try and register on U75 seven times in one day, then that person has a problem which is nothing to do with TTG.



Really?

None so blind eh?


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> I'm not aware of anyone from TTG who has the slightest interest in trying to start a board war.






			
				editor said:
			
		

> Really?!! Are you sure about that?


Yes.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> Yes.


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Lucky you, I can't access the one all the fuss is about because they won't let me in. (No confirmation of registration so I can't even log on and that was weeks ago).


Ferchrissakes tobyjug, send someone there your email address - no-one at TTG wants to keep you out - you'd be very welcome.

In fact you can email me at hamster @ dovestreet.co.uk if you like, and I'll sort it for you.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Lucky you, I can't access the one all the fuss is about because they won't let me in. (No confirmation of registration so I can't even log on and that was weeks ago).


Toby, we looked into this for you when you first mentioned it and couldn't see what the problem was    You should be able to register fine.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Your confidence in your fellow-boarders does you credit FH, but I think in one case at least (and maybe 2), it's misplaced.


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> Ferchrissakes tobyjug, send someone there your email address - no-one at TTG wants to keep you out - you'd be very welcome.
> 
> In fact you can email me at hamster @ dovestreet.co.uk if you like, and I'll sort it for you.




Apparently I am not the only one with the same problem. Surely someone actually checks the new registrations from time to time.


----------



## tobyjug (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Toby, we looked into this for you when you first mentioned it and couldn't see what the problem was    You should be able to register fine.




Well I can't I tried again and it says I can't register because someone else is using my e-mail address. (Which seems very odd to me as I have never had a registration confirmation).


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> woflie....
> 
> woflie was self confessed troll on TG - who ya reckon that was!



fuck off - I made it categorically clear that I was NOT *NOT* *NOT* a troll

is that clear now?

never have been never will be  - I don't have the competitive, macho, play gound point scoring, personality to be a troll (and frankly I that behavious puzzling) - I'm just a Ronnie-Corbett alike as was so wittily pointed out by one of your charmng pals ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think he was a good poster. His politics are very very conservative and ill informed IMO.






			
				Red Jezza said:
			
		

> as for 'ill-informed and conservative' - how so?



Try his views (when thy could, with extreme difficulty, be separated from his 'views') on law and order/crime and punishment related issues. Not all of the extreme stuff he came out with was just for show. His hardlinery here was at the root of his spitting hatred towards those unilaterally (and often highly inaccurately, misrepresentingly, insultingly, bullyingly, lyingly) designated by *him* as 'liberals', and his sneering contempt for Blagsta's and mine and others' contributions to crime threads was exceptionally destructive in debates here. When such hardline, pro-kneecapping of youth offenders type 'opinions' were posted by him here, all they did was embitter and polarise a potentially worthwhile debate/discussion (if you oppose kneecapping, you must be more in favour of the rights of criminals than of their victims -- totally Daily Mail -- a paper never, ever criticised by ern, cos it was the Guardian that was the REALLY evil paper, innit?). Such stuff  unnecessarily insulted those trying to contribute to that type of thread. Same with his 'Guardian readers = racists' shite. Really destructive to the atmosphere here when it was still happening.

Not dissimilar to the effects of phildwyer's contributions in that monster Brixton thread atm.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Not dissimilar to the effects of phildwyer's contributions in that monster Brixton thread atm.


I've met him too, so can categorically guarantee that he's not ernesto, if that's what you think.

I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the politics or opinions of a banned poster in such depth, but it is, however, appropriate to raise issues concerning people trying to troll/damage/disrupt this community (although why it's come up in this particular thread is anyone's guess!)

More of that later, I fancy, though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

*Jezza*

I didn't answer  'cos I don't really want to feed ern's ego any more than strictly necessary.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Not dissimilar to the effects of phildwyer's contributions in that monster Brixton thread atm.



William.  You do seem to be, and I have heard that you are, a reasonable person.  So why the *fuck* do you insist on dragging me into your utterly shite argument here?  You were incapable of answering my points on the Brixton thread, and so you resorted to the ad hominen, which I have *never,* ever used against you, even when provoked, as now.  And now you seem determined to do the same here, although I haven't even posted on this thread.  What do you think you're playing at?  Your behavior leads me to suspect that your detractors may have a point...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I've met him too, so can categorically guarantee that he's not ernesto, if that's what you think.
> 
> I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the politics or opinions of a banned poster in such depth, but it is, however, appropriate to raise issues concerning people trying to troll/damage/disrupt this community (although why it's come up in this particular thread is anyone's guess!)
> 
> More of that later, I fancy, though.



Point taken -- sorry. I was responding to Blagsta's and Jezza's exchange of views.

I'm fully aware phildwyer is not ern at all, it just seemed an apposite comparison. But irrelevant really, I agree. Apols for confusion ...


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I'm fully aware phildwyer is not ern at all, it just seemed an apposite comparison.



Well its not.  Leave me out of this. Thank you.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> William.  You do seem to be, and I have heard that you are, a reasonable person.  So why the *fuck* do you insist on dragging me into your utterly shite argument here?  You were incapable of answering my points on the Brixton thread, and so you resorted to the ad hominen, which I have *never,* ever used against you, even when provoked, as now.  And now you seem determined to do the same here, although I haven't even posted on this thread.  What do you think you're playing at?  Your behavior leads me to suspect that your detractors may have a point...



What detractors? I doubt you can name more than the odd one who isn't an out and out troll, or a troll-defender at least.

They haven't got a point, although you have. It was irrelevant to THIS thread, sorry. Might be worth you  considering why the comparison popped unbidden into my head though. But that's not for here agreed. I should have left those two lines out.

You're still full of nonsense on that Brixton thread though


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well its not.  Leave me out of this. Thank you.



Give me a fucking chance to post an apology, FFS!!!! See above post.

Don't act so injured innocent and all  hard done by, I'm not the only one to criticise you in that other thread.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Don't act so injured innocent and all  hard done by, I'm not the only one to criticise you in that other thread.


Wooargh! Leave the fella out of it please.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What detractors? I doubt you can name more than the odd one who isn't an out and out troll, or a troll-defender at least.



That is because you assume that anyone who criticizes you is a "troll or a troll defender" *by definition.*  You do, actually, this is true.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Give me a fucking chance to post an apology, FFS!!!! See above post.



Alright, alright, I posted my last one before reading this one too.  I'll be off now, peace out.


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think anyone would want to reproduce one of those pictures that make you feel as though you are well known and part of the set  or make you the butt of any jokes due to the fact that very few people know who you are or want to. Those that do have used the phrases 'lightweight' 'insignificant ' and 'easily led'.
> 
> As you will have only heard about the last issue through rumour I suggest you refrain from making any firm judgements  or trying to get in on the act.
> 
> Quite a few of us are still happy to post on both boards and have friends on both boards and have no interest in maintaining a climate of tension or heightening distrust.



piss off chuck, your third paragraph is pretty much what i was saying.  we want a climate of trust and we don't have one.  the rest of your post was just a chance to insult someone for no good reason.  classy.  but it's nice to know that i've been discussed, though in what context any of those expressions would be relevant i really can't imagine.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

tobyjug said:
			
		

> Well I can't I tried again and it says I can't register because someone else is using my e-mail address. (Which seems very odd to me as I have never had a registration confirmation).


Have you tried logging in with the name and password you first registered with?  Or could you pm me your email address and the name you registered with and I'll sort it out for you.  You certainly haven't been banned or blocked.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I didn't answer  'cos I don't really want to feed ern's ego any more than strictly necessary.


OK fair play.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really?!! Are you sure about that?Even when they're a mod?!!!


Ed, if you have evidence that a TG mod registered 7 times in a day here, I'd really like to know who it is.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Ed, if you have evidence that a TG mod registered 7 times in a day here, I'd really like to know who it is.



I'm pretty certain that never happened.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

It was TopCat.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I'm pretty certain that never happened.


I'm absolutely sure you're completely wrong.

It was TopCat.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It was TopCat.



..... who is not, and never has been, a moderator on ttg.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It was TopCat.



He's not a mod.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It was TopCat.


I wasn't aware TC was a mod.  So not ern then, which seemed to be the suggestion


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

I don't know if he's a mod or not.

ern trolls here quite regularly as well by the way, though he doesn't register loads of times a day. But you *have* to know that, surely, if you're Junta.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> He's not a mod.


He is one of your  _founders_  though, and I quote





> The Tolling Gang has no wish to engage in a flame-war with any other bulletin board, and has asked that its members desist from any such activity. We should also like to ask Urban75 posters to desist from such activity.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

For whatever its worth, I think U75 should be immensely flattered that it has apparently managed to spawn a dialectical antithesis.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Not much of a dialectic if you ask me.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For whatever its worth, I think U75 should be immensely flattered that it has apparently managed to spawn a dialectical antithesis.


...and it sorts the wheat from the chaff


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Here's another of your mods in trolling action, this time it's rednblack:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4131351&postcount=12
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4128384&postcount=11
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4128507&postcount=14


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Oh dear, not too hot on Hegel some folks here. Onward to the interpenetration of the opposites!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware TC was a mod.  So not ern then, which seemed to be the suggestion


He's in your secret Junta forum group, no?
And I was told that they were secret because they were moderator's forums.
Is that not the case then?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Not much of a dialectic if you ask me.



Well then, maybe this other lot could be a sort of Conference to U75's Football League?  You know, each month the two most successful posters there could be "promoted" over here, while our two silliest could be "relegated" to them?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> He is one of your  _founders_  though, and I quote


Indeed, we've certainly asked members to desist.  But again, I don't see how we can control TG members behaviour elsewhere on the internet.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> For whatever its worth, I think U75 should be immensely flattered that it has apparently managed to spawn a dialectical antithesis.



stop using terms you don't understand


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Indeed, we've certainly asked members to desist.  But again, I don't see how we can control TG members behaviour elsewhere on the internet.



Isn't starting board wars a disclipnary offence over there?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> stop using terms you don't understand



And you're a fine candidate for relegation, currently propping up League Two, ten points adrift and a vastly inferior goal difference.


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well then, maybe this other lot could be a sort of Conference to U75's Football League?  You know, each month the two most successful posters there could be "promoted" over here, while our two silliest could be "relegated" to them?



arf.  i like that idea.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> He's in your secret Junta forum group, no?
> And I was told that they were secret because they were moderator's forums.
> Is that not the case then?


There's a difference between Junta and moderators.  Junta members collectively make decisions about the running of the site (hence a private forum, there are too many Junta members to have discussions via pm), but don't have mod/admin powers.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Indeed, we've certainly asked members to desist.  But again, I don't see how we can control TG members behaviour elsewhere on the internet.


 I agree with this, and have been sitting here watching this playground scrap thinking that this is really about feuds between a few _individuals_, or in one or two cases between individuals and a particular board. There's absolutely no reason to view it as a board-against-board fight - except that certain people seem to want to create such a fight, presumably to pander to their own sense of self-importance.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> There's a difference between Junta and moderators.  Junta members collectively make decisions about the running of the site (hence a private forum, there are too many


So it's OK for Junta members to try and troll the site, yes?

And how about rednblack? Isn't he a mod?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Indeed, we've certainly asked members to desist.  But again, I don't see how we can control TG members behaviour elsewhere on the internet.


You can't.

But I get absolutely sick and tired of all this "we're so put upon by Urban / you never ban your mates" crap, when you're quite well aware that people on TG troll Urban all the time and you lot don't do anything apart from - occasionally - say "maybe we should just forget about Urban". Whereas people get banned here for trying to start that shit.

For fuck's sake, you've got fucking Anna Key over there.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> So it's OK for Junta members to try and troll the site, yes?


As long as their actions have no serious consequences for ttg itself, then they are free to do what they want on other bulletin boards. Being an u75 poster has never stopped me trolling Republican message boards, I'd suspect that a huge number of u75 posters have at some stage trolled somewhere.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I agree with this, and have been sitting here watching this playground scrap thinking that this is really about feuds between a few _individuals_, or in one or two cases between individuals and a particular board. There's absolutely no reason to view it as a board-against-board fight - except that certain people seem to want to create such a fight, presumably to pander to their own sense of self-importance.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole *raison d'etre* of the Other Board to provide sheltered accomodation for people who have been evicted from U75?  In which case it would be surprising if attacks on U75 *didn't* form the basis of their conversations?  I think they should be encouraged, they could be a sort of disloyal opposition, providing an embittered undercurrent of critical commentary against which we could define ourselves.  If not a dialectical antithesis, then a constitutive Other.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

ETA;@ FM 
I think that's a bit OTT, tbh; the mods there - like you, here, have lives to lead. they can no more enforce good behaviour all the time, from everyone, throughout the whole intwernet than you can. They'd prolly go nuts trying


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> As long as their actions have no serious consequences for ttg itself, then they are free to do what they want on other bulletin boards. Being an u75 poster has never stopped me trolling Republican message boards, I'd suspect that a huge number of u75 posters have at some stage trolled somewhere.



Hypocrisy abounds I see.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So it's OK for Junta members to try and troll the site, yes?
> 
> And how about rednblack? Isn't he a mod?


I'm not advocating trolling anywhere    It's not about whether it's "ok" to troll, I just don't see how we can control how posters behave elsewhere.  

As Brainaddict said, this is a spat between a few individuals.  The vast majority of people from both boards aren't interested in a fight.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

At 2.57pm today, it will be exactly 24 hours since pk was given his 48 hour ban.

*He has left us, but his derail lives on*


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I'm not advocating trolling anywhere    It's not about whether it's "ok" to troll, I just don't see how we can control how posters behave elsewhere.
> 
> As Brainaddict said, this is a spat between a few individuals.  The vast majority of people from both boards aren't interested in a fight.



No, they're not.  But the main instigator from this board has been banned for stirring.  The main instigator from your board appears to have carte blanche to do what he likes.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> At 2.57pm today, it will be exactly 24 hours since pk was given his 48 hour ban.
> 
> *He has left us, but his derail lives on*


He _will _ be proud


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole *raison d'etre* of the Other Board to provide sheltered accomodation for people who have been evicted from U75?


You are wrong.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> You are wrong.



Well I haven't looked at it, but to judge from this thread its membership seems to be a pretty much complete rollcall of *personas non grata* round here.  No?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> ETA;@ FM
> I think that's a bit OTT, tbh; the mods there - like you, here, have lives to lead. they can no more enforce good behaviour all the time, from everyone, throughout the whole intwernet than you can. They'd prolly go nuts trying


It's not about "enforcing", it's about not sitting there while certain people rant on and on about Urban and how they're trolling it and how the editor sucks and how there's all these DJs and so on, and in fact plan trolling campaigns, without doing anything at all - and then coming on here and whining about how no friends of the mods ever get banned and the editor is a fascist.

It's really getting on my tits. It's the hypocrisy. (I'm not specifically talking about Thora here incidentally, even though I was replying to her; I don't have a perception of her as doing that.)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I haven't looked at it, but to judge from this thread its membership seems to be a pretty much complete rollcall of *personas non grata* round here.  No?



No.

Louis Mac


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Well I haven't looked at it, but to judge from this thread its membership seems to be a pretty much complete rollcall of *personas non grata* round here.  No?


No.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)




----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

oh, and the actual trolling gets on my tits a bit as well, but not nearly as much


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> No.



Oh come now.  There are at least five individuals there, who have been named on this thread, who've been banned from U75 in the last year.  Just a coincidence?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

So when you say 'membership' you actually mean 'a tiny proportion of posters'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh come now.  There are at least five individuals there, who have been named on this thread, who've been banned from U75 in the last year.  Just a coincidence?


name names!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Oh come now.  There are at least five individuals there, who have been named on this thread, who've been banned from U75 in the last year.  Just a coincidence?



A little over 1% of the boards' membership...a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss.

Louis Mac


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

one thing I've noticed visiting these forums irregularly over the last month or so is the obssession with having huge nonsensical arguments going over the same ground over and over....

does it not get a bit dull? Or do you like hitting your heads against brick walls? There are many other threads I suggest posters engage on....



I'm sure both boarrds can coexist and the old protagonists will hopefully lose interest in each other.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> A little over 1% of the boards' membership...



That can be changed.  How would you like it if we sent you PK?  The Other Board could be a sort of U75 penal colony.  We could do a virtual Mariel boatlift on you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

*cheg*

Can't say I've noticed anything much different over the road.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> A little over 1% of the boards' membership...a bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss.


I think he means from their _mission statement_.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It's not about "enforcing", it's about not sitting there while certain people rant on and on about Urban and how they're trolling it and how the editor sucks and how there's all these DJs and so on, *and in fact plan trolling campaigns*, without doing anything at all - and then coming on here and whining about how no friends of the mods ever get banned and the editor is a fascist.




So youre saying people on TTG plan trolling campaigns? is this arranged in the Junta?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

would TTG people *PLEASE*stop the desperate recruting campaign over here? please

maybe then 'i' would take you seriously. it is very very depressing to see some posters previously held in high regard become lap dogs


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I just don't see how we can control how posters behave elsewhere.


How about: "Dear fellow mod/Junta member.
Your endless trolling of urban75 is causing disruption and unnecessary ill feeling between the two boards.

Seeing as our self-proclaimed mission statement clearly states that we aren't interested in stirrig up boards wars, please stop or be banned"?

Just an idea, like.

If any urban75 mod started pissing about with multiple log ins and endless trolling attempts on another site, they'd be kicked off, so it's not exactly hard to stop them.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> So youre saying people on TTG plan trolling campaigns? is this arranged in the Junta?


That's obviously another one that's passed me by.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Can't say I've noticed anything much different over the road.



it is! honest! if you go with an open mind.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> If any urban75 mod started pissing about with multiple log ins and endless trolling attempts on another site, they'd be kicked off, so it's not exactly hard to stop them.



If you are aware that they are doing it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> it is! honest!



Not from what I can tell.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> one thing I've noticed visiting these forums irregularly over the last month or so is the obssession with having huge nonsensical arguments going over the same ground over and over....
> 
> does it not get a bit dull? Or do you like hitting your heads against brick walls? There are many other threads I suggest posters engage on....
> 
> ...




no, it's plain to see that without the topic of attacking urban and sly recruiting, that board would die very quickly and probably never been set up in the first place.

take a step back ffs, all u need is an 'r' in the url. or was that name already taken


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> it is! honest! if you go with an open mind.


Oh, oh... if I email you can I join?

see ddraig above


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> We could do a virtual Mariel boatlift on you.


I have no idea what this means. Am I hopelessly out of touch?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> would TTG people *PLEASE*stop the desperate recruting campaign over here? please


what's so wrong with that?  
if TTGers ARE running trolling campaigns THAT would be out of order


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

what desperate recruiting campaign?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> it is! honest! if you go with an open mind.




ffs! leave it with the desperation   


and i went with an open mind, was most underwhelmed and confined to the gulag


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> no, it's plain to see that without the topic of attacking urban and sly recruiting, that board would die very quickly and probably never been set up in the first place.


How many of the 1000 threads on ttg would you say fall into the category of 'attacking urban75'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> confined to the gulag


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

"The Mariel boatlift was a mass exodus of refugees who departed for the United States from Cuba's Mariel Harbor between April 15 and October 31, 1980. Fidel Castro eventually closed the harbour to all refuge-seeking Cubans. Due to ocean currents and its close proximity, the refugees' vessels headed to Florida and the majority landed in Miami. The immigrants were detained upon arrival and crowded conditions in South Florida immigration processing centers forced U.S. government agencies to swiftly move the "Marielitos" to other centers in Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, and Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.

During this period, approximately 125,000 Cubans arrived at the United States' shores in about 1,700 boats creating large waves of people that overwhelmed the U.S. Coast Guard. Many of the vessels were barely seaworthy and a total of 27 migrants died, including 14 on an overloaded boat which capsized on May 17, 1980.

Upon arrival, many Cubans were placed in refugee camps, while others were confined to federal prisons to undergo expulsion hearings. Some of the refugees were later discovered to be violent felons released from Cuban prisons. However, most of the refugees were very poor and merely sought a better life for themselves.

The Mariel boatlift was depicted in the 1983 film Scarface."

Say hello to my leedle friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Oh, oh... if I email you can I join?
> 
> see ddraig above



you can join like anyone else - by registering!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> So youre saying people on TTG plan trolling campaigns?








Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.

Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!

Ah yes, here it is....

Let's hear it for a thread called, *"Thread Bumping To Troll Urban 75"!*

Oh, and there's a mighty big cast of big-name mods all in there, all scheming away!

I wonder if Mr Moley could give me their names?

<listens hard...>


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> ffs! leave it with the desperation



have you wet your pants?


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what desperate recruiting campaign?


Do you toll?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift


Ah, cheers.

I thought it was going to be something to do with _Muriel's Wedding_. Which might have been very different if De Palma had directed.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.
> 
> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!
> 
> ...




never heard of it *shrugs*


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what desperate recruiting campaign?



your fucking taglines? people continuously going 
'please come and try again'
'there must have been an error'
'email me direct'
'all you have to do is this'
'you'd be most welcome'

ie WE ARE FUCKING DESPERATE, PLEASE JOIN OUR STALE SINKING SHIP


how can you possibly not see that your taglines are a sign of desperation? or at least very very childish when you post under them claiming no disruption, duh!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!


You called?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig





> you post under them claiming no disruption, duh!



please withdraw that allegation or supply some proof for me saying that.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> you can join like anyone else - by registering!



ok 

example 1 ^


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> have you wet your pants?



haven't you got a 'better' board to be on?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> That can be changed.  How would you like it if we sent you PK?  The Other Board could be a sort of U75 penal colony.  We could do a virtual Mariel boatlift on you.



What's this 'send you' nonsense? I'm someone who reads and posts increasingly infrequently on both boards; as such I'm an Urbanite and a Toller. 

Louis Mac


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.
> 
> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!
> 
> ...



appaling behaviour 

this website is completely obsessed, constantly running threads denouncing all the moderators and many of the main posters on there


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

Ninjaboy said:
			
		

> appaling behaviour


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> never heard of it *shrugs*


Ask some of your fellow TG-ers about the secret forum it's hidden in.

I'll give you some names if they don't respond to this shortly, if you like...


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> ddraig
> 
> please withdraw that allegation or supply some proof for me saying that.




stick.it.up.yer.junta!


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.
> 
> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!
> 
> ...



thats an enormous lie editor - pathetic. There is no such thread.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> no, it's plain to see that without the topic of attacking urban and sly recruiting, that board would die very quickly and probably never been set up in the first place.


89% of their members have made less than 100 posts - with the vast majority of posts coming from heavy (former?) U75 posters.

I think most people joined through curiousity due to the first thread of this kind (or its derail )

Without threads like this, would there be a TL?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> stick.it.up.yer.junta!


so, once again, you come out with a load of auld wank masquerading as fact.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ask some of your fellow TG-ers about the secret forum it's hidden in.
> 
> I'll give you some names if they don't respond to this shortly, if you like...



Ill ask fridgemagnet then, he signed up  

Just give me the names, dates, times and context. If youve got something to say just say it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> thats an enormous lie editor - pathetic. There is no such thread.


if editor's managed to find a mole in brixton, and a talking mole at that, then reality's been left far, far behind.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.
> 
> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!
> 
> ...



No such thread exists editor, I think someones shit stirring again


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> 89% of their members have made less than 100 posts - with the vast majority of posts coming from heavy (former?) U75 posters.




Im just big boned


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ask some of your fellow TG-ers about the secret forum it's hidden in.


Like your claim that a tolling gang mod had registered here 7 times in a day, it again appears that you're either lying or have been misinformed. No thread with that (gramatically horrible) title exists, or ever has existed, in any forum, public or private.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, once again, you come out with a load of auld wank masquerading as fact.



Oh, the irony!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on! A little mole is whispering the name of a thread in my ear.
> 
> Now speak up little moley, I can't hear you...!
> 
> ...


IF what you say is true (IF), I for one would be shocked, saddened and deeply disappointed. 
don't take this personally - I've never had reason to doubt your word - but for my peace of mind, i'd want to see the the bodies and the smoking revolver on this one....


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

so determined to put an end to the boardwar, the editor claims to have managed to get a spy into the other boards secret forum


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> How many of the 1000 threads on ttg would you say fall into the category of 'attacking urban75'?



dunno, a lot of them are 'invisible' no?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> What's this 'send you' nonsense?



Just as Fidel emptied his jails and lunatic asylums by sending all the inmates to Miami, we could do the same to you.  We will start by putting PK amongst you, and see how much you like *that.*  You will have to pay a hefty ransom to get us to take him back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

> This message is hidden because *Lock&Light* is on your ignore list.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Like your claim that a tolling gang mod had registered here 7 times in a day, it again appears that you're either lying or have been misinformed. No thread with that (gramatically horrible) title exists, or ever has existed, in any forum, public or private.


I think it may have been called "Thread on "pointlessly bumping" old threads". Started Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:57 pm.

I did note your concentration on the wording of the title.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> thats an enormous lie editor - pathetic. There is no such thread.


Oh, hold on, I think I must have misheard Molely!

The thread is all about "pointlessly bumping" old threads on urban75, with various mods all gathering to gleefully discuss the disruption they could cause.

You're on the thread too! 

The date was Mon Nov 28, 2005. Has that jogged you memory yet?


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

I've heard rumours about a mole too, but I doubt it's the editor.

Still, it'll all end up in the wash eventually. I can only hope that some of the posters on here don't turn out to be two-faced shitebags.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

I can't say it rings any bells for me, but then again it is a pretty old thread...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Like your claim that a tolling gang mod had registered here 7 times in a day, it again appears that you're either lying or have been misinformed. No thread with that (gramatically horrible) title exists, or ever has existed, in any forum, public or private.


Time for some facts.

A member of the TG 'Junta' did indeed try to register here seven times in a single day (as confirmed by FM), a TG mod, rednblack, has just been caught red handed trying to troll the site elsewhere (link posted) and there absolutely _is_ a thread on the TG all about trolling urban75 by "pointlessly bumping" old threads.

I apologise for getting the thread title wrong, but Molely's such a little fella it's hard to hear him (or is it a her?) sometimes!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I've heard rumours about a mole too, but I doubt it's the editor.



I can just imagine the show-trials currently going on in the gulag as the leaders of the escape committee try to determine who the infiltrator is.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I think it may have been called "Thread on "pointlessly bumping" old threads". Started Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:57 pm.
> 
> I did note your concentration on the wording of the title.



So a thread that might have been started over 2 months ago, with an ambiguous title, that you may have misremembered, that I don't recall, and no longer exists (presumably, if it ever existed, having been deleted)

That the editor attempted to pass off with an entirely different (and far more damning) title and imply was a current thread.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I can only hope that some of the posters on here don't turn out to be two-faced shitebags.


It'd fucking devastate me if they did, I'm hating all this 
Espesh as the editor seems very, very sure of his info. That precise over date and time is worrying


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 31, 2006)

Gah, people hate secrets don't they?  

There's no such problem over at thecoolestthingever.  Our secret forum is well, less than secret.  And unlike dissention we don't need a reason to ban people


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I can just imagine the show-trials currently going on in the gulag as the leaders of the escape committee try to determine who the infiltrator is.


Or ern and flim desperately burning the accounts...


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh, hold on, I think I must have misheard Molely!
> 
> The thread is all about "pointlessly bumping" old threads on urban75, with various mods all gathering to gleefully discuss the disruption they could cause.
> 
> ...



Is that all you've got? A thread from three months ago which no-one can remember even having existed?

I take it your 'mole' fell down a shaft and got buried alive. The news he's bringing out would appear rather, er, _stale...._

I must say, for a piffling messageboard with fewer than 400 posters on it, which you profess 'not to care' about, you do spend an awful lot of time obsessing about it on here....


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Or ern and flim desperately burning the accounts...


the accounts a re posted openly on the genreal Forum for all to see.

http://www. thetolling gang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=122


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The date was Mon Nov 28, 2005. Has that jogged you memory yet?


 Wow. So your "information" is only two months out of date.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> the accounts a re posted openly on the genreal Forum for all to see.


erm... thanks... want a fiver?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

You know what really pisses me off?

It's that so many people are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a non profit site.

I understand that not everyone may like the style in which this site is run, but we do our best, and it's by no means the only board on the web. There's lots of other places to post, so if you don't like it, move along - there's loads more!

So I don't understand why some people should go to all the effort of starting a new board and then let a handful of bitter, malicious, agenda-laden individuals screw the whole thing up with their anti-urban75 agenda.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I take it your 'mole' fell down a shaft and got buried alive


Why would that affect a mole?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Why would that affect a mole?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Names please. Your mime show is becoming tiresome.

FWIW I haven;t posted here since the statement was produced whenever it was, and have stayed out of your way.

Until this pitiful thread, which you appear to be stirring up for reasons best known to yourself.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses me off?
> 
> It's that so many people are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a non profit site.


 Bought any good electronic gadgets lately?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> So a thread that might have been started over 2 months ago, with an ambiguous title, that you may have misremembered, that I don't recall, and no longer exists (presumably, if it ever existed, having been deleted)
> 
> That the editor attempted to pass off with an entirely different (and far more damning) title and imply was a current thread.


It was started then, it doesn't have an ambiguous title, I haven't misremembered because I'm not doing it from memory and it did exist. I don't know whether it exists at the moment or whether it's been deleted.

You posted on it.

Any more?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Bought any good electronic gadgets lately?


When in doubt, bring up ern and AK's obsession with Sony.

Nice one.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

So let's see it then becuase I;ve had a good look and it's no longer there.

After all, if there's such despicable intent to bring down U75 by pointlessly bumping old threads, I'm sure you'll be just as keen to share it with everyone else.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> So I don't understand why some people should go to all the effort of starting a new board and then let a handful of bitter, malicious, agenda-laden individuals screw the whole thing up with their anti-urban75 agenda.


I'm sorry that people have trolled Urban.  However, I don't think the Tolling Gang's screwed up.  It's doing quite nicely.


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> When in doubt, bring up ern and AK's obsession with Sony.
> 
> Nice one.


Seems only right and fair, nay, legal, for people to know where their money goes.


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

You know what really pisses _me_ off?

It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses _me_ off?
> 
> It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.



paranoia


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Seems only right and fair, nay, legal, for people to know where their money goes.


To Sony?

I don't think so.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses _me_ off?
> 
> It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.


Are they though? It doesn't seem to me that they're going on to that site and trying to damage it. It _does_ seem to me that a couple of moderators from the otehr site have been doing that here. Am I wrong, missing something or otherwise in error?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

what people seem to be missing here is that there are no longer any old threads here to be bumped, even if people wanted to - if i remember correctly, last year fridgemagnet in an excess of zeal sent all threads which hadn't been posted on for three months or more to some sort of secret forum - i believe something thousands of threads are languishing in there.

so whether or not there was a thread on another board at the end of november, it would have been pointless bumping old threads as they were no longer accessible to the commonality of posters here.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

*cough* where's this, er, 'smoking gun' thread then?

Must admit I havne't heard of a gun that smokes for three months after being fired.

Though doubtless pbman will be along to correct me shortly (if he's still here)


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> You posted on it.
> 
> Any more?


Ooh, do me!  Do me!

Did I post on it?  What did I say?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what people seem to be missing here is that there are no longer any old threads here to be bumped, even if people wanted to - if i remember correctly, last year fridgemagnet in an excess of zeal sent all threads which hadn't been posted on for three months or more to some sort of secret forum - i believe something thousands of threads are languishing in there.
> 
> so whether or not there was a thread on another board at the end of november, it would have been pointless bumping old threads as they were no longer accessible to the commonality of posters here.



pedantic


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

kittens:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> pedantic


predictable but still wanky.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> kittens:



them some ugly kittens!


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 31, 2006)

mmmm.  shaved pussy.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses _me_ off?
> 
> It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.


er - is he? how?  
complaining about a past thread is hardly 'fucking up' the whole bleedin' boards!
<mystified>


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> kittens:


Eeuwww


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> predictable but still wanky.



Ooooh, vicious!

*licks wounds*


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Bought any good electronic gadgets lately?


You've lost me here. That wouldn't be because you're trying to change the subject, would it?

But do go on. Make some sense of your post and then I can post up a special treat from Molely. 

It's flounce-tastic, so I hear. Ring any bells?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

I'd like to see a copy of this alleged thread.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

If it exists.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I take it your 'mole' fell down a shaft and got buried alive. The news he's bringing out would appear rather, er, _stale...._



Clearly this mole has been "turned."  Captured and threatened with torture by the prisoners' ruthless leader, he has become a double agent, giving out misinformation in an attempt to provoke a premature assault.  The only answer is to spirit him away for debriefing, before providing him with new papers and a fresh identity.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses me off?
> 
> It's that so many people are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a non profit site.
> 
> ...




Do you know what _really_ fucks up your not for profit site? It sure as heck isn't 3 posts by rednblack, or topcat trying to register 7 times in a day, or even ern trying to come back. It's letting the place be littered with shit threads like this that leads to everyone on both boards feeling like crap and getting involved in endless slanging matches. It's the sheer strength of animosity generated by this bollocks that could have been averted by binning this thread when it first got derailed. 

There's a lot of us who can swear till we're blue in the face that TTG isn't what you say it is. But you'd rather believe snippets of halfheard info you've been passed at a party or some shit and draw your own conclusions. 

And before you come back with whatever fresh accusations you've got to lay at TTG, just think "why bother?" It's not going to make this place any better to hang around, it's not going to make you any happier. Why not just stop worrying about us, and make sure this place doesn't become a battleground for rehashing old arguments?


----------



## MysteryGuest (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses _me_ off?
> 
> It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.




Twaddle.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> If it exists.


Ah!

An admission of guilt. Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Ooh, do me!  Do me!
> 
> Did I post on it?  What did I say?


No, you didn't, sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah!
> 
> An admission of guilt. Now we're getting somewhere.


but is it a place worth going?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Steeplejack, I take it you've read other peoples posts (including mine) instead of just the editor's? Most of mine have been pretty reasonable, considering, and not all that excessive ... where editor, chegri and phildwyer pulled me up on stuff, all from wildly varying directions, I either clarified or apologised. Eg that stuff about what ern posted when he used to be here -- true IMO, but not relevant to this thread. 

I'm not sure what to think about the thread editor mentioned, never saw it. 

But then neither is Jezza. You have to accept that not everyone with doubts/concerns about _some_ aspects of what a few members of the TTG forum get up to, is an unqualified apologist for everything going on here on Urban.

I do agree with those acknowledging that TTG is not all about antipathy to Urban/Urbanites - plenty else on there which I've given due credit for. My posts here have been more about how the place is undermined by out and out tolling, or trolling ... or behind the scenes plots ... even when only a very few people are involved. 

Must piss off the rest of you. At least, it *ought* to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what people seem to be missing here is that there are no longer any old threads here to be bumped, even if people wanted to - if i remember correctly, last year fridgemagnet in an excess of zeal sent all threads which hadn't been posted on for three months or more to some sort of secret forum - i believe something thousands of threads are languishing in there.
> 
> so whether or not there was a thread on another board at the end of november, it would have been pointless bumping old threads as they were no longer accessible to the commonality of posters here.


No, it wouldn't, not at the time that that thread was posted; I hadn't moved anything.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> but is it a place worth going?


Well it would be good for the plot if there is a mole...


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah!
> 
> An admission of guilt. Now we're getting somewhere.



Is it?

Thanks goodness you;re not a High Court Judge, otherwise traffic fines cases under your supervision would doubtless end in summary execution.

Your childish coyness is risible, though. i thought we were meant to be the infantile crackpots.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It was started then, it doesn't have an ambiguous title, I haven't misremembered because I'm not doing it from memory and it did exist. I don't know whether it exists at the moment or whether it's been deleted.
> 
> You posted on it.
> 
> Any more?



Did I? What did I post?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Did I? What did I post?


"has anyone got that one which he dredged up to ban rednblack and butchersapron on?" apparently.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Eeuwww


 I decided no one on this thread deserved cute kittens so I found the ugliest kittens on t'interweb.
Yes, and just to let you know, every time someone posts something here aimed at continuing this argument instead of resolving it ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE KITTENS IS BORN!!    
Please, think about what you're doing to the world before you post on here again


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You've lost me here. That wouldn't be because you're trying to change the subject, would it?


 Didn't your mummy tell you lying makes you hair fall out? Your ability to make things up has been proven without question. 

So how about you make your accounts public if you have nothing to hide about your non profit site? Non profit organisations are required by law to do so, you know. Perhaps your contributors  ought to check with the inland revenue.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Steeplejack, I take it you've read other peoples posts (including mine) instead of just the editor's? Most of mine have been pretty reasonable, considering, and not all that excessive ... where editor, chegri and phildwyer pulled me up on stuff, all from wildly varying directions, I either clarified or apologised. Eg that stuff about what ern posted when he used to be here -- true IMO, but not relevant to this thread.
> 
> I'm not sure what to think about the thread editor mentioned, never saw it.
> 
> ...



I never said you were, WoW. i did read your comments and agreed with most of them.

What enervates me is this childishness from editor and his laughable claims to have a 'mole'.

After all, what mole worth his salt would have as his prize info a thread from three months ago that no-one can remember?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> No, it wouldn't, not at the time that that thread was posted; I hadn't moved anything.


in that case why was i concerned about the disappearance of threads on 19/11?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> Do you know what _really_ fucks up your not for profit site? It sure as heck isn't 3 posts by rednblack, or topcat trying to register 7 times in a day, or even ern trying to come back. It's letting the place be littered with shit threads like this that leads to everyone on both boards feeling like crap and getting involved in endless slanging matches. It's the sheer strength of animosity generated by this bollocks that could have been averted by binning this thread when it first got derailed.


When a group of people go out of their way to attack urban75 and its posters, create a set of secret forums designed to slag off, ridicule and share personal information about fellow urban75 posters behind their backs, and cerate up creating a ton of unnecessary work for volunteer mods here by their co-ordinated trolling antics, it becomes my business.

I think many urban75 posters - and indeed many decent TG posters - may be shocked at what's been going on. 

I certainly was and there's apparently lots more to come.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> What enervates me is this childishness from editor and his laughable claims to have a 'mole'.
> 
> After all, what mole worth his salt would have as his prize info a thread from three months ago that no-one can remember?


Would you like something newer?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Please, think about what you're doing to the world before you post on here again


Brainaddict: this has to be sorted, once and for all and then the air can be cleared.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Ooooh! Yes pwease!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Didn't your mummy tell you lying makes you hair fall out? Your ability to make things up has been proven without question.
> 
> So how about you make your accounts public if you have nothing to hide about your non profit site? Non profit organisations are required by law to do so, you know.



You are mad and stupid.  Be careful or you will find yourself exiled to the Other Board, and you can't expect the desperado outlaws over there to show much tolerance for your antics.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You know what really pisses _me_ off?
> 
> It's that a few people - including the editor, ffs - from a massive site like U75 are prepared to dedicate so much time to trying to fuck up a small site like thetollinggang.



I have to agree with Mystery Guest on this -- twaddle.

Read my posts from earlier perhaps, and maybe stop being so onesided please.

I've every reason, more so personally than most Urbanites, to be VERY personally pissed off with a very small number of TTG people.

And yet while far from objective,  I've tried my best in this thread to be as reasonable as possible, putting in positive points about the site,a nd most of its people,  where appropriate ...

I've never trolled on TTG in my life, nor wanted to fuck it up in any way. For the people responsible for any possible threat of that, look to a very small number of your own.

(Again none of the above means I'm not critical of what pk was getting up to -- I've clearly said so several times)


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Tell you what, people have stopped talking about George Galloway for a bit and that can't be a bad thing.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> If it exists.


ermm...on that subject, how far back do you keep threads?
please note, also (ditto belushi) I am reserving opinion.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's flounce-tastic, so I hear.


Was it a flounce or a resignation? We could do with a bit of help on this one, it took us a while to decide.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> "has anyone got that one which he dredged up to ban rednblack and butchersapron on?" apparently.



I wholeheartedly apologise for my remarks I made on Tolling Gang about any arguments I had on here. Terrible behaviour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Tell you what, people have stopped talking about George Galloway for a bit and that can't be a bad thing.


agreed!


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> When a group of people go out of their way to attack urban75 and its posters,


 I know_ for a fact _ that you've been obsessing over ttg and lurking on there at all hours since it started.  You've been totally preoccupied for the past two months with trying to fuck it up. 

There are moles and there are moles.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> ermm...on that subject, how far back do you keep threads?
> please note, also (ditto belushi) I am reserving opinion.



there's no hard and fast rule about that, RJ.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Tell you what, people have stopped talking about George Galloway for a bit and that can't be a bad thing.


don't tell Pickman's, but TTG is actually a secret front for Respect!


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

I'd like to see something anyway.

There's too much of this mealy mouthed 'I can't possibly remember slagging off x in the secret forum' to be plausible if I'm honest. I suspect from some of the reactions that there may be a bone of truth in there somewhere.

I hope I'm wrong. Even more I'm hoping some of the TG posters I like aren't going to turn out to be hypocritical two-faced fuckers prone to mouthing off about others in secret forums and denying all knowledge afterwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> don't tell Pickman's, but TTG is actually a secret front for Respect!


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Tell you what, people have stopped talking about George Galloway for a bit and that can't be a bad thing.



FWIW, this stuff is perfect for a Galloway thread...


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> You are mad and stupid.  Be careful or you will find yourself exiled to the Other Board, and you can't expect the desperado outlaws over there to show much tolerance for your antics.


From you that's the highest compliment you silly, silly little man.


----------



## herman (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Time for some facts.
> 
> A member of the TG 'Junta' did indeed try to register here seven times in a single day (as confirmed by FM), a TG mod, rednblack, has just been caught red handed trying to troll the site elsewhere (link posted) and there absolutely _is_ a thread on the TG all about trolling urban75 by "pointlessly bumping" old threads.
> 
> I apologise for getting the thread title wrong, but Molely's such a little fella it's hard to hear him (or is it a her?) sometimes!



I thought I knew who the mole is. Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I certainly was and there's apparently lots more to come.


if you think it best "to clear the air" now, why not show your hand?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> Thanks goodness you;re not a High Court Judge, otherwise traffic fines cases under your supervision would doubtless end in summary execution.
> 
> Your childish coyness is risible, though. i thought we were meant to be the infantile crackpots.



here's another example ^
you are accusing someone of being childish?   

'taking a heavy toll' ffs
did u get a special badge for that one


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> There are moles and there are moles.



But are there not also voles who pretend to be moles?  The tulips are blooming early in Moscow this year...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> here's another example ^
> you are accusing someone of being childish?
> 
> 'taking a heavy toll' ffs
> did u get a special badge for that one


am i steeplejack?

no? then find something I posted - or apologise.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Perhaps your contributors  ought to check with the inland revenue.


Oh dear. You're losing it again.

I think your time on this site is coming to a close because these kind of wild accusations simply cross the line.

To save you frothing over your keyboard again, perhaps you can re-use your hilarious cut and paste flounce from the tolling gang from just two weeks ago?





> You can wedge your pathetic little show trial where the sun don't shine. I'm off. And I certainly won't be recommending this site to anybody else, except reactionary little white, middle class anarcho-boys, who are the only members you're going to get.


(Sadly, for the TG you were back quick enough!)

Big up Ms Mole!


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> When a group of people go out of their way to attack urban75 and its posters, create a set of secret forums designed to slag off, ridicule and share personal information about fellow urban75 posters behind their backs, and cerate up creating a ton of unnecessary work for volunteer mods here by their co-ordinated trolling antics, it becomes my business.
> 
> I think many urban75 posters - and indeed many decent TG posters - may be shocked at what's been going on.
> 
> I certainly was and there's apparently lots more to come.



God knows what you think you know or have been told. I'm on the junta and I don't recall anything of the sort. 

If you think this is a productive way to actually sort out any problems, then I think you're mistaken.


----------



## J77 (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> don't tell Pickman's, but TTG is actually a secret front for Respect!


Really, that would explain the monarchistic leanings.

Going home now - hope this thread survives the night


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But are there not also voles who pretend to be moles?  The tulips are blooming early in Moscow this year...


Indeed


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> here's another example ^
> you are accusing someone of being childish?
> 
> 'taking a heavy toll' ffs
> did u get a special badge for that one



No. have you won a badge for writing posts that nobody reads?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you think it best "to clear the air" now, why not show your hand?


Could you imagine anyone being so sad, _so utterly pathetic _as to go to the urban75 Christmas curry - an evening for people to relax amongst urban75 friends - and then post up an embellished transcript of a *private conversation* on the TG site for people to sneer and comment on?

Step forward Pickman's! That pathetic two faced ratfink is you!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> God knows what you think you know or have been told. I'm on the junta and I don't recall anything of the sort.


You are aware that there are several other hidden forums on TG, yes?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> am i steeplejack?
> 
> no? then find something I posted - or apologise.



wtf? my post earlier was not aimed at just you, however much u think of yourself
 
why don't you start the now evident backtracking like your colleagues?

it'll save you time in the long run


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Go on then editor, stick up everything you've got, outline what you object to and lets clear the air and move on.  I think everyone's getting a bit over excited.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 31, 2006)

Man this is getting nasty


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Brainaddict: this has to be sorted, once and for all and then the air can be cleared.


 Well I can see some people feel that way, which is fine, but all I see is a lot of accusations, many of them quite vague, being thrown around, without any clear idea of what the problems are, let alone how the problem is to be solved. If people have accusations they should produce evidence (not aimed at you particularly btw) and should state *who* it is they have a problem with, no? Saying 'urban does this' 'the tolling gang does that' seems not  very useful as there are so many people involved in each.  

To put it another way, I've been following this whole thread and I don't understand why people are getting so worked up, as I haven't seen anything that justifies it. If what's been going on has to be kept secret then it shouldn't be being discussed here. If what's been going on can be talked about, then let's everyone lay their cards on the table and talk plainly instead of by implication or trying to be clever about it or launching ad hominem attacks without explaining why.

Yours

The Campaign for Plain English


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you imagine anyone being so sad, _so utterly pathetic _as to go to the urban75 Christmas curry - an evening for people to relax amongst urban75 friends - and then post up an embellished transcript of a *private conversation* on the TG site for people to sneer and comment on?
> 
> Step forward Pickman's! That pathetic two faced ratfink is you!



Pickman's!  A mole in vole's clothing!  Who'da thunk it?  Well, friend Pickman's, perhaps we can offer you a way to *redeem* yourself?  The cherry blossoms are already gathering on Nevsky Prospect...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> in that case why was i concerned about the disappearance of threads on 19/11?


Oh, you're right, actually - it was on the 14th that I moved stuff. Various bits were then moved back of course.

And in fact the thread was started about another thread...

Post subject: Thread on "pointlessly bumping" old threads
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.... started by his nibs. In "community" chat. 

The discussion moves on to using it as a tactic though.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

hear hear brainaddict.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you imagine anyone being so sad, _so utterly pathetic _as to go to the urban75 Christmas curry - an evening for people to relax amongst urban75 friends - and then post up an embellished transcript of a *private conversation* on the TG site for people to sneer and comment on?
> 
> Step forward Pickman's! That pathetic two faced ratfink is you!


a private conversation conducted at high volume in a room full of people?


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Oh dear. You're losing it again.<schizo rantings>


 Nobody believes a word you say any more. Nobody trusts you. And your obsession with tolling gang has completely taken you over. I think you should check yourself in to the Maudesley ASAP. And from what I hear, people close to you are thinking that way too. 

Time to check with the IR how non-profit your business really is, I reckon.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry said:
			
		

> Do you know what really fucks up your not for profit site? It sure as heck isn't 3 posts by rednblack, or topcat trying to register 7 times in a day, or even ern trying to come back. It's letting the place be littered with shit threads like this that leads to everyone on both boards feeling like crap and getting involved in endless slanging matches. It's the sheer strength of animosity generated by this bollocks that could have been averted by binning this thread when it first got derailed.






			
				editor said:
			
		

> When a group of people go out of their way to attack urban75 and its posters, create a set of secret forums designed to slag off, ridicule and share personal information about fellow urban75 posters behind their backs, and cerate up creating a ton of unnecessary work for volunteer mods here by their co-ordinated trolling antics, it becomes my business.
> 
> *I think many urban75 posters - and indeed many decent TG posters - may be shocked at what's been going on.*
> 
> I certainly was and there's apparently lots more to come.



Spot on, the bit in bold.

Of course people on either side of this protracted (and to many, depressing) argument are feeling like crap abiut this stuff.

Just as **I** get to feel like crap when I visit TTG and see the site I spend far too much time on, and my friends here, referred to collectively as 'Arselick' (DEEPLY insulting to anyone, really!), myself mystifyingly referred to repeatedly as 'the baked bean'. No reason ever given, but no doubt it all came out of earlier, secret discussions, and when, immediately pre-flounce, a recent flouncer from Urban sends me a very abusive PM accusing me of deliberately getting 3 TTGites 24 hour banned from here without leaving me any chance to respond or put my side of the story. This at the end of a several month campaign of occasional but regular nastiness and vitriol from same person. Who appears to largely blame me for getting ern banned from here in the first place. Look to your own side for (a very small number of) shitstirrers, not just here  x 1000

Then I hear details of a secret forum and I wonder what MORE is being said about me and Urban on it, what version of reality is being propogated!

Hopefully challenged by the sensible moderators, I hope so. But the one or two troublemakers do seem to get away with an awful lot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Go on then editor, stick up everything you've got, outline what you object to and lets clear the air and move on.  I think everyone's getting a bit over excited.


i've already asked him to.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> No. have you won a badge for writing posts that nobody reads?



snigger, playground stuff, tut tut

read this, i suggest banning all you fuckers off here, problem solved then eh?
you can carry on empire building over there and we can have some peace


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> I know_ for a fact _ that you've been obsessing over ttg and lurking on there at all hours since it started.  You've been totally preoccupied for the past two months with trying to fuck it up.


I have made no effort whatsoever to "fuck up" the TG over the past two months. I have never posted on the TG. I have not trolled there or done anything to effect the boards in anyway whatsoever. I have however, occasionally looked at the site after reading PMs about what's being said there.

So you'd best apologise for your latest wild accusation or be banned forever, because I've had enough of your bonkers claims.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Go on then editor, stick up everything you've got, outline what you object to and lets clear the air and move on.  I think everyone's getting a bit over excited.


yes, seconded. this is doing my f-ing head in. we REALLY need the air cleared.
ETA; not 'popping' at Editor - or anyone - but this needs to be done with.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Nobody believes a word you say any more. Nobody trusts you. And your obsession with tolling gang has completely taken you over. I think you should check yourself in to the Maudesley ASAP. And from what I hear, people close to you are thinking that way too.
> 
> Time to check with the IR how non-profit your business really is, I reckon.



Perhaps you'd like to point the charge of obsession with another website, and unhingedness about it, at one or two of your own friends on TTG?



> Time to check with the IR how non-profit your business really is, I reckon.



That's an implicit threat of grassing up, isn't it? It looks rather like it to me.

I don't think 'touting' is very well regarded, over at TTG


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I have made no effort whatsoever to "fuck up" the TG over the past two months. I have never posted on the TG. I have not trolled there or done anything to effect the boards in anyway whatsoever. I have however, occasionally looked at the site after reading PMs about what's being said there.
> 
> So you'd best apologise for your latest wild accusation or be banned forever, because I've had enough of your bonkers claims.


I for one am getting sick of veiled accusations.  Lets get everything out in the open now.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> snigger, playground stuff, tut tut
> 
> read this, i suggest banning all you fuckers off here, problem solved then eh?
> you can carry on empire building over there and we can have some peace



that's nice dear


----------



## IntoStella (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd like to point the charge of obsession with another website, and unhingedness about it, at one or two of your own friends on TTG?


Oh for god's sake william, do shut up.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> a private conversation conducted at high volume in a room full of people?



I believe, Pickman's, that there are certain, ahem, *devices* which can assist those whose curiosity exceeds the capacity of their ears.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> Just as **I** get to feel like crap when I visit TTG and see the site I spend far too much time on, and my friends here, referred to collectively as 'Arselick' (DEEPLY insulting to anyone, really!)


libcom has repeatedly been referred to as wibcom both here and on ttg. Doesn't seem to make catch, pingtaio, icepick, jimmer and the other people who run libcom feel like crap.


> Spot on, the bit in bold.


How do you know if it's 'spot on' or not? Do you know "what's going on"?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

ETA: @ intostella
err, but he's right!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Time to check with the IR how non-profit your business really is, I reckon.


I've had some really bizarre threats delivered to me in the past, but threatening to report me _to the Inland Revenue_ really takes the biscuit!!!!

Bonkers!

And on that note, it's time to say goodbye to IS from these boards, otherwise she'll be reporting me to the water board or somethng next!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> I believe, Pickman's, that there are certain, ahem, *devices* which can assist those whose curiosity exceeds the capacity of their ears.


good.

and you know where you can stick them.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh for god's sake william, do shut up.



Why don't you?

You seem very erm _focused_ in your criticisms, to the point of suggesting the IR need to be involved in someone else's affairs, thats called grassing in my book.

Your criticisms are at the expense of ignoring others who may also deserve some.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I for one am getting sick of veiled accusations.  Lets get everything out in the open now.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

IntoStella said:
			
		

> Oh for god's sake william, do shut up.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.


   last chance to jump the sinking ship


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I for one am getting sick of veiled accusations.  Lets get everything out in the open now.


I'll be glad to later, but I've got a bit of work to do right now.

I don't know if anyone else is getting the same stuff as me, but it's quite depressing reading.

For the record, I don't think I've got a beef with you, but this really is some horrible stuff up there and the posters responsible must have known that it would get out eventually.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Tell you what, people have stopped talking about George Galloway for a bit and that can't be a bad thing.


No, No you're wrong - this all happened outside his _house _.  So, that must mean err... that the TG  is based in ... Portugal?   

Bin, bin, bin ...


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> a private conversation conducted at high volume in a room full of people?



Let me get this straight: you choose to go to an sit down event orgainsied through urban75, then apparently slag off a load of people at that meal in a foum hidden from the public on another board. In the meantime you continue to visit both, pretending things are normal. 

...and then you try and excuse this by saying that it was a conversation in a public place!


What a wanky thing to do, plumbing the depths of a tabloid 'investigative reporter,' only stitching up those kind enough to invite you to a meal.

Any truth in this Pickman's, or are you denying that you posted this stuff? I wish someone would just be honest, rather than all this evasive stuff.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'll be glad to later, but I've got a bit of work to do right now.


Seems like you're dragging this out unnecessarily now.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

> Author: jimmer
> Junta
> 
> 
> ...



Old habits die hard.

http://www.thetollinggang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1714

Plenty of Junta members having a little titter to themselves at that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and you know where you can stick them.



On a lighter note, this reminds me of a poem that circulated among the British establishment at the time a far more illustrious mole was outed:

"What, old Tony Blunt a traitor?
And a homosexualist?
Hanging out with tar and waiter?
There's a sight I'm glad I missed!"

Anyway, Pickman's, have you thought any more about our "offer?"  The nightinglales have already flown Yekaterinburg...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight: you choose to go to an sit down event orgainsied through urban75, then apparently slag off a load of people at that meal in a foum hidden from the public on another board


err...how do you know P's M was slagging people off? editor didn't say that


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> libcom has repeatedly been referred to as wibcom both here and on ttg. Doesn't seem to make catch, pingtaio, icepick, jimmer and the other people who run libcom feel like crap.



Perhaps said libcommers haven't been repeatedly abused as 'arselickers' and 'hypocrites' for daring to agree with a moderator's decision about someone ... 



> How do you know if it's 'spot on' or not? Do you know "what's going on"?



I'm starting to. You seem to know little more than me however.





			
				Red Jezza said:
			
		

> But, he's right



Thanks Jezza, I think you and several other TTGites know the score really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight: you choose to go to an sit down event orgainsied through urban75, then apparently slag off a load of people at that meal in a foum hidden from the public on another board. In the meantime you continue to visit both, pretending things are normal.
> 
> ...and then you try and excuse this by saying that it was a conversation in a public place!
> 
> ...


what happened was that editor approached me and made his feelings plain about ttg at the top of his voice in a restaurant. if you want to think that i had dinner with about 30 people and proceeded to slag them all off behind their backs, you're welcome to.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> err...how do you know P's M was slagging people off? editor didn't say that



I apologise if I get that one wrong, but that seemed to be the implication.

I'd like to be proved wrong, but too many of the folk on TG seem to be sufferering convenient memory loss rather than denying that such activities took place. 

Either way, is a secret 'moderation' forum on another board really the place to be sharing gossip from a social event and concerning other posters elsewhere?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> I'm starting to. You seem to know little more than me however.


I've read pretty much every single private thread on ttg, and most public ones as well, so I'd suggest I know plently more.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> I apologise if I get that one wrong, but that seemed to be the implication.


There's certainly a lot of implication going on.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

No doubt this'll get spun out until the useful idiot pk is allowed back into the fray.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

I don't think it matters very much if somebody had a conversation in one place and reported it in another place, unless the nature of the conversation was such that it was reasonably clearly meant to be private.

I _do_ think it matters if moderators from one bulletin board choose to troll another bulletin board. That's a bit beyond the bounds of acceptability (as well as directly contrary to their stated policy).

I tend to think that if you set up a bulletin board in reaction to another bulletin boasrd, with all sorts of personal issues involved, then this sort of thing is likely to happen.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?


I am.

And that thread you linked to about the Wespec boards is a joke thread from the public fora.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?



Yes. I am.

have you evidence to the contrary?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> I've read pretty much every single private thread on ttg, and most public ones as well, so I'd suggest I know plently more.



Fine. What's all that 'baked bean' shite** about then? I've guessed but have only a  loose idea.

(**a petty thing in the broader scheme of stuff, I'll concede  but indicative of an attitude ... )


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what happened was that editor approached me and made his feelings plain about ttg at the top of his voice in a restaurant.


You're a fucking despicable liar.

The restaurant was packed and very noisy and we could only hear each other by talking close to each other.

It's highly, highly unlikely that anyone could have possibly heard our private conversation because it was intended for your ears only and not for broadcasting on a secret forum.

So you know what's you've said is untrue. I know that and so would anyone else at the meal. So why the desperate lies?


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> There's certainly a lot of implication going on.




Fairy nuff, I largely agree. I'd like to see some more too.

My main point from the last post remains though; most people seem to feel aggrieved because they believe they've been gossiped about or badmouthed in some way in 'secret' forums of some kind. Is there any truth in this.

And if there is why? Surely the secret/moderation forum shouldn't contain gossip from a social event and slagging off other posters elsewhere


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> I've read pretty much every single private thread on ttg, and most public ones as well, so I'd suggest I know plently more.


Could you tell me how many forums you have access to?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> No doubt this'll get spun out until the useful idiot pk is allowed back into the fray.


Ah, it's the poster known as 'the button'.

You've been a bit naughty in the secret forums, haven't you?


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes. I am.
> 
> have you evidence to the contrary?




http://www.thetollinggang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1714

With support from...

Ern
Kea
Photo
Meanoldman
chegrimundi
Pastcaring

Need I go on?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

your 'work' no longer seems to be detaining you, editor.

any chance of you publishing what evidence you have, to back up your claims?


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2006)

oh, now i know why 60 odd people are on p/p, it wasn't because they want to enter the fabulous debates here.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 31, 2006)

Fuck off longdog.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> http://www.thetollinggang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1714
> 
> With support from...
> 
> ...



errr...that was a _joke_ for Christ's sake. the moderator of that site and his sidekick registered on TTG. Indeed, so heinous is our board-fucking strategy, and so devilishly cunning and secret, that it's now in the open forums.

Can;t you do any better? Or is that all you;ve got?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?


is anyone denying that longodog has the sense of humour of a year old kipper?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Fine. What's all that 'baked bean' shite** about then? I've guessed but have only a  loose idea.


It refers to some post you made a long time ago that someone picked up on and stuck in swarthy's mind. What post the reference was culled from is beyond me.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> I am.
> 
> And that thread you linked to about the Wespec boards is a joke thread from the public fora.



A joke thraed that ran to four pages and was dedicated entirely to the disruption of another forum.

Some joke. Shows the level of maturity of the 'management'.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Could you tell me how many forums you have access to?


All forums except the admin forum.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

which forum was disrupted so heinously that the board owner registered!



try again, longdog.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)




----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?






			
				steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes. I am.
> 
> have you evidence to the contrary?



I don't have any evidence, although stuff DOES seem to be emerging about one (or more?) secret forums. And there certainly seems to be a lack of much serious challenge** from or to the founder, when he or one or two others get up to _individual_ mischief making.

**(beyond krs's admirable efforts in this thread and elsewhere, and Jezza's efforts, and a few others  ) 

And do YOU have access to the (or any of the) secret forums? ALL of them, if there's more than one?? If you don't, you can only see what I see when I visit, plus maybe some more if you have access to any mods' forum. Sorry, I don't know whether you're a mod or not over there -- I have no quarrel at all  with you anyway, except with for your apparant underestimation of the problem  apparantly contributed to by a very few of you, but all this inter forum bad feeling and suspicion has impact on everyone, as Sorry said ...


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Fuck off longdog.



Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> A joke thraed that ran to four pages and was dedicated entirely to the disruption of another forum.
> 
> Some joke. Shows the level of maturity of the 'management'.


kept it down to one RUC thread, and that's the main thing


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> It refers to some post you made a long time ago that someone picked up on and stuck in swarthy's mind. What post the reference was culled from is beyond me.


I think you'll find it's written all over the TG forums. There was a picture of him and stig posted up - yesterday I think  - for ernesto and swarthy to take the piss out of.

Did you see it?

Oh, and can you tell me the _number _of forums you can see as that might explain some things.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

I was a moderator until about three weeks ago. I gave up because I'm too busy IRL to do it properly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You're a fucking despicable liar.
> 
> The restaurant was packed and very noisy and we could only hear each other by talking close to each other.
> 
> ...


i well remember being able to talk to people on the other side of the table without great difficulty - certainly without shouting in their ears.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> There was a picture of him and stig posted up - yesterday I think - for ernesto and swarthy to take the piss out of.


Which was complained about, and deleted.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> errr...that was a _joke_ for Christ's sake. the moderator of that site and his sidekick registered on TTG. Indeed, so heinous is our board-fucking strategy, and so devilishly cunning and secret, that it's now in the open forums.
> 
> Can;t you do any better? Or is that all you;ve got?



Just to be serious for a moment, if you lot hate U75 so much, why are you still here?  Why don't you concentrate on your own site and see if you can do better?  I don;t give much for your chances--frankly, your only decent writer is Ernesto, as far as I can see.  But you certainly won't achieve your transparent aim of supplanting U75 as the most interesting BB on the Web by posting on it, will you?


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ah, it's the poster known as 'the button'.
> 
> You've been a bit naughty in the secret forums, haven't you?


Post up what you like, sony jim.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Is anyone denying that boardwars have 'managerial' backing on TTG?






			
				steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes. I am.
> 
> have you evidence to the contrary?







			
				longdog said:
			
		

> http://www.thetollinggang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1714
> 
> With support from...
> 
> ...





Check-mate I believe


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

*Blindfold chess*




			
				longdog said:
			
		

> Check-mate I believe


It's on an invisible board if it is. Can you reveal the contents?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

You;re not a very good chess player, longdog.



one joke thread is evidence that we all blanket -condone board war as a matter of 'policy'?

aye, right. I take it you're persisting with this one in the absence of anything more credible to say.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 31, 2006)

This has turned into such a Pantomime, I dont believe the Editor has anything but is just trying to start a board war, but if you have please post it up.


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

so people are enjoying ripping the piss out of urban75 on a private forum on another bulletin board. thats shocking


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> It refers to some post you made a long time ago that someone picked up on and stuck in swarthy's mind. What post the reference was culled from is beyond me.



Minor in the scheme of things, then. But how was I to know? When I first saw it, several times, it looked plausibly like an 'in joke' shared by a few TTGites, incomprehensible to anyone else .... much later on, it did tend to fuel my suspicion that there might be one or more secret forum where such stuff and more gets posted up about selected Urbanites.

You now I'm not mad keen on that sort of thing ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Ninjaboy said:
			
		

> so people are enjoying ripping the piss out of urban75 on a private forum on another bulletin board. thats shocking



Read the thread properly, Ninja man ... if you can bear to

There seems to be a lot more to it ...


----------



## jimmer (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Check-mate I believe


I think you'll find that's more of a political struggle than a 'board war'.

I would just like to thank everyone for such exciting reading over the last two days, I now have to go and do things that matter...


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's on an invisible board if it is. Can you reveal the contents?



It's quite clear. About the 8th one down in 'general'

Of course you could just follow this link.

http://www.thetollinggang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1714


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Just to be serious for a moment, if you lot hate U75 so much, why are you still here?  Why don't you concentrate on your own site and see if you can do better?  I don;t give much for your chances--frankly, your only decent writer is Ernesto, as far as I can see.  But you certainly won't achieve your transparent aim of supplanting U75 as the most interesting BB on the Web by posting on it, will you?



If you bother to check, today is the first time I've posted on here in nearly two months. And once this thread is finished, I won't be back.

I don't 'hate' U75, either. Just don't like the way it's run- but then it's not my site, so fair enough.

However certain individuals have been consumingly _obsessed_ with our so-called 'secret forums' ever since we set up the site- so perhaps you;d be better addressing your complaint to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

it's getting dull.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

right; 2 points.
first, the OPEN bit of TG is all that counts, because that's what the web is all about. one thing is true of EVERYONE on TTg and U75; right now, somebody somewhere could be talking about you, and none of you'll ever be any the wiser. so it hardly matters, does it? surely a 'secret' forum is not in itself a problem
If there's some real nasty shit in there, THEN it's a problem - I await to see editor's info....
as for the public forum. I saw DISCUSSION of this place whwen I joined, and thought the discussions were fair and not-unreasonable


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

OK, what about this?  Ed, when you bust someone from TTG trolling on here, don't kick them off, just stick them in a separate "board war" forum and never let them out.  Actually you could exile other trolls there too.  Then people from the "normal" boards could pop in there for a quick therapeutic ruck whenever they felt the need.  The trolls would be kept happy, and everyone else would have an outlet.  This would isolate all the flaming in one place and make it easier to control.  Call it a "tolerance zone."


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i well remember being able to talk to people on the other side of the table without great difficulty - certainly without shouting in their ears.


We both know that I stood right next to you and the conversation was intended to be private.

No one else listened in and no one else joined in.

You're a disgrace, snitch boy.


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Read the thread properly, Ninja man ... if you can bear to
> 
> There seems to be a lot more to it ...



i have been following it off and on, but it seems like all the other threads on here about the same thing for the past 2 months.....

e2a : only maybe a bit nastier


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> There was a picture of him and stig posted up - yesterday I think - for ernesto and swarthy to take the piss out of.






			
				General Ludd said:
			
		

> Which was complained about, and deleted.



Thanks to whoever complained and whoever deleted, appreciated both.

Which forum was this on then?

The story, although admirably corrected quickly in this case it seems, doesn't lend a lot of credibilty to any denials that there are some (a tiny number of)right immature shitstirrers on TTG.

Whover made swarthy thug ('Lustbather') a moderator/admin (??) needs their head examined!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2006)

your recollection of events is at variance with mine. but that's only to be expected, i suppose.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> We both know that I stood right next to you and the conversation was intended to be private.
> 
> No one else listened in and no one else joined in.
> 
> You're a disgrace, snitch boy.



editor - this thread has gone waaaaaaaayyyyyyy off topic - strange its been allowed to continue....another agenda perhaps?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> If there's some real nasty shit in there, THEN it's a problem - I await to see editor's info....


Here's the problem. 

Some of the stuff I've been sent will quite probably destroy friendships and I'm not sure I want that to happen.

One thread in a secret (but read by many) forum, for example, consists of ernesto asking for personal, private information about an u75 poster 'for his files' and two people - who I thought much better off - wilingly divulged the intimate details.

I like the guy they're talking about, but when he reads that thread there'll be a fucking explosion...


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Ninjaboy said:
			
		

> so people are enjoying ripping the piss out of urban75 on a private forum on another bulletin board. thats shocking




I'm glad you think it's ok cos they were talking about inviting you and your mate firky to join in the fun ....


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

My apologies to Stig for indirectly getting her into this -- she bears no reponsibility at all**   

Looks like I owe her a pint later!

**Not that I do, much. What IS it with this picture posting thing?? It's stirred up so much shit ...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Whover made swarthy thug ('Lustbather') a moderator/admin (??) needs their head examined!



I'm not sure he is tbf.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> editor - this thread has gone waaaaaaaayyyyyyy off topic - strange its been allowed to continue....another agenda perhaps?


It just happened to be the place where the inevitable showdown took place.

I didn't start the off-topic stuff, neither have I the faintest idea what this "agenda" might be.

Perhaps you might explain for my benefit, please?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm not sure he is tbf.



I did ask which forum it had been posted on, and added some (??)


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Mr Lustbather is not a moderator, William.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Whover made swarthy thug ('Lustbather') a moderator/admin (??) needs their head examined!



Once again, the swarthy one is not, and never has been either a moderator or an admin. 

There is a thread in the general forum of ttg listing the mods & admins.


----------



## kakuma (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I'm glad you think it's ok cos they were talking about inviting you and your mate firky to join in the fun ....



i make enough of a mockery of this place by trying to be funny on here


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> Once again, the swarthy one is not, and never has been either a moderator or an admin.


Ooh! Look at your tagline!


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm not sure he is tbf.



he isn't - the lies and disinformation being spread here is quite something


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It just happened to be the place where the inevitable showdown took place.
> 
> I didn't start the off-topic stuff, neither have I the faintest idea what this "agenda" might be.
> 
> Perhaps you might explain for my benefit, please?



er...


...like claiming to have a 'mole' and then running away to do some 'work', perhaps, just to drag this out a wee bitty longer, like?

I'm sure if someone was making like complaints about U75 and consistently refused to produce evidence you;d have banned them by now.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

as TP said, your logo is shit
i've amended it for you
please send my fee to the URBAN server fund


----------



## past caring (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> We both know that I stood right next to you and the conversation was intended to be private.
> 
> No one else listened in and no one else joined in.
> 
> You're a disgrace, snitch boy.



Really?

Do you think we should apply the same standards to your alleged "mole"? In fact, why don't _you_ apply the same standards to your alleged mole?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> he isn't - the lies and disinformation being spread here is quite something



The stench of hypocrisy from your side is quite something too. 
I don't think anyone's gonna come out of this looking very good tbh.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)




----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Ooh! Look at your tagline!


Ta.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

..


----------



## chegrimandi (Jan 31, 2006)

last comment on the matter:

tollinggangs not going away - the sooner you get used to it the better and hoepfully the two baords can coexist despite the desires of some people.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> last comment on the matter:
> 
> tollinggangs not going away - the sooner you get used to it the better and hoepfully the two baords can coexist despite the desires of some people.



Yup. I'm mystified as to the root of the complete obsession with it.


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> ..


What's that? Morse code? He's sending secret signals, I tells ya.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> he isn't - the lies and disinformation being spread here is quite something



Was that at me? Apologies for thinking he was a mod if he wasn't -- it's to TTG's credit that he isn't.

You're diverting from my primary exasperation though, that him and ern seemed to between them be the main sniggerers at mine and Stig's picture. It's been removed, thankfully, but if that happens on a public forum, whats going on in the private ones? How am I to know? This sort of shit just generates suspicion!

I'm with steeplejack, I'd like to see some evidence about this secret forum (or all of them!) at some stage soon. 

Unlike him, I'm not so sceptical about its or their very existence. No-one has categorically denied it, except to focus on the dull admin stuff on one of them -- is that the only one??.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> What's that? Morse code? He's sending secret signals, I tells ya.


could be mole droppings!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I'm sure if someone was making like complaints about U75 and consistently refused to produce evidence you;d have banned them by now.


I've already outed (and banned) one of your admins today (rednblack aka bayasbel) and revealed the name of a serial troller (and Junta member) who tried to register seven times in a day (TopCat).

But just to whet your appetite, here's some recent examples of the kind of the planned trolling that goes on in the TG:

(about the Advertising thread on u75)

ernestolynch:
I hope he does decide to try and get 'ethickal' advertisers - it'd be a goldmine of opportunities for wind-ups!

(about the user tag rule thread on u75)

the button (aka knopf):
"changed mine to thegollingtang.org , and it got replaced with a thing that said "No URLs, please." Is this happening automatically, or is it only some URLs?
Someone try posting Sony's web address in their tagline.
You know you want to"

kea:
"or just put web addys in with strategically placed spaces"


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yup. I'm mystified as to the root of the complete obsession with it.



shut the door on ya way out!

let's see how long u can hack it over there before coming back with some disruption


----------



## gurrier (Jan 31, 2006)

Urghhh.  What a car crash of a thread.  I reckon that it could do with a bit of separating out of the different elements.  A vain attempt to offer some constructive 

First off if the TTG wants to have private forums and so on, who cares?  I think it's something that board admins should minimise as it breeds suspicion, but that's not a point of principle.  If people want to set up areas for private discussion with like minded folks, that's their business. If somebody decides to badmouth you or gossip about you in private, that's an issue between you and the gossiper, not the board.  It's not particularly different from real-world gossiping anyway and you can't blame the medium for the abuse of trust by the individual who does the gossiping. 

Secondly, it seems pretty obvious to me that the people who run TTG are by and large genuine and I don't think one should under-estimate the effects of inexperience.  I mean it really is only by seeing this type of shit-storms that makes people realise how important it is to really strictly enforce stuff about cross-board trolling and all that regardless of whether it may be amusing at the time. 

Finally, it should be always remembered how fucking annoying trolls are for mods.  If you waste half a day chasing some muppet around your board, only to see people laughing about it on another board, it will make you homicidal.   

* addendum: ddraig, intostella, phildwyer, etc are really not helping things by trying to stir up a "them and us" mob mentality and the evidence free accusations of embezzlement are particulary out of order.  I also reckon the mole is the worst variety of gossip going - I mean devoting your time to spreading nasty gossip is not my idea of a good way to spend my time*


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Here's the problem.
> 
> Some of the stuff I've been sent will quite probably destroy friendships and I'm not sure I want that to happen.
> 
> ...



Here's another problem; saying that you've got evidence of other people's bad behaviour and then not providing that evidence isn't the most productive way of moving this forward. If you don't want to use the evidence then don't allude to it. If you do want to use it then post it up so that we can all make up our minds. Otherwise we have got to take it on trust from one or other of the aggrieved parties, and trust is one thing that is definitely in short supply on this thread.

Louis (Urbanite/Toller) Mac


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> shut the door on ya way out!
> 
> let's see how long u can hack it over there before coming back with some disruption



fuck off you vile cunt.

If you can produce evidence of where I've been 'disruptive' on here, ever, let's have it.

If you've nothing to add here but snide and sycophantic remarks, then take a walk...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yup. I'm mystified as to the root of the complete obsession with it.



What about ern's obsession with us? And Anna Key's? And Into Stella's? And swarthy the cult hero thug's?

And what about this, or these, secret forums? You categorically deny they exist, anywhere on the site?

Look at Bristle krs's post earlier on, admirtably objective and even handed, unlike your one liner there. He started off with some sensible, reasonable stuff, Jezza has posted similar, and he's starting to get disturbed about some of the stuff thats coming out.

The great majority of decent TTGites have got a REAL problem with a small number of their group, including at least one moderator, the founder.

Attacking 'us' doesn't solve that problem, even when some of the criticisms (such as of pks behaviour yesterday) were justified.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I've already outed (and banned) one of your admins today (rednblack aka bayasbel) and revealed the name of a serial troller (and Junta member) who tried to register seven times in a day (TopCat).
> 
> But just to whet your appetite, here's some recent examples of the kind of the planned trolling that goes on in the TG:
> 
> ...



Horrendous. Terrifying. Unbelievable.

A clear trolling strategy outing everyone on here's personal details, with everyone sniggering and agreeing.....

...that was your contention, wasn't it? Still waiting for the evidence.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> fuck off you vile cunt.
> 
> If you can produce evidence of where I've been 'disruptive' on here, ever, let's have it.
> 
> If you've nothing to add here but snide and sycophantic remarks, then take a walk...



your tagline for starters?

thought u were going


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Here's the problem.
> 
> Some of the stuff I've been sent will quite probably destroy friendships and I'm not sure I want that to happen.
> 
> ...


OK. check PMs


----------



## knopf (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> the button (aka knopf):
> "changed mine to thegollingtang.org , and it got replaced with a thing that said "No URLs, please." Is this happening automatically, or is it only some URLs?
> Someone try posting Sony's web address in their tagline.
> You know you want to"



It's a fair cop, guv, but society is to blame. 

I notice, btw, that a poster earlier on this thread has his set to libcom.org -- or is that a derail?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Horrendous. Terrifying. Unbelievable.


How about fat hamster boasting that "This shit-stirring is addictive" to ernesto's glee? (re: u75 user tag thread)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Urghhh.  What a car crash of a thread.  I reckon that it could do with a bit of separating out of the different elements.  A vain attempt to offer some constructive
> 
> First off if the TTG wants to have private forums and so on, who cares?  I think it's something that board admins should minimise as it breeds suspicion, but that's not a point of principle.  If people want to set up areas for private discussion with like minded folks, that's their business. If somebody decides to badmouth you or gossip about you in private, that's an issue between you and the gossiper, not the board.  It's not particularly different from real-world gossiping anyway and you can't blame the medium for the abuse of trust by the individual who does the gossiping.
> 
> ...




I'd by and large agree with this, especially the bit about inexperience.  I think that the mods on ttg are learning that modding is difficult and that some of things they complained about over here, they're having to do over there...
I think having ern as a mod is a *big* mistake though - he's the one responsible for most of this shit, while some of you (seemingly - obviously I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes) do nothing and others actively brownnose him.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What about ern's obsession with us? And Anna Key's? And Into Stella's? And swarthy the cult hero thug's?
> 
> And what about this, or these, secret forums? You categorically deny they exist, anywhere on the site?
> 
> ...



William, calm down.

I've never denied the existence of private forums.

I do deny that all they exist for is to stir up trouble on here.

And I haven't been involved in any 'attacks' on here, at all.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I've never denied the existence of private forums.
> 
> I do deny that all they exist for is to stir up trouble on here.


Hold on. Are you saying that you've never heard of the forum called The Files?
It's *sole existence* is to stir up shit with urban75.

Thora certainly knows about them. Do you?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Urghhh.  What a car crash of a thread.  I reckon that it could do with a bit of separating out of the different elements.  A vain attempt to offer some constructive
> 
> First off if the TTG wants to have private forums and so on, who cares?  I think it's something that board admins should minimise as it breeds suspicion, but that's not a point of principle.  If people want to set up areas for private discussion with like minded folks, that's their business. If somebody decides to badmouth you or gossip about you in private, that's an issue between you and the gossiper, not the board.  It's not particularly different from real-world gossiping anyway and you can't blame the medium for the abuse of trust by the individual who does the gossiping.
> 
> ...



Good post gurrier, on speedy reading. Some substantial and objective points there, nice one -- may respond later, if I get the chance.

But Newbury was ten years ago and we need to go and see the films and meet some of Stig's friends/fellow veterans.

Not so long after   ernesto was attempting to snigger at her dreads, no doubt ...

Sorry to decent TTGites for that last dig, but you've got some stuff to sort out if that sort of thing is happening. At least it was sorted quickly it seems -- *this time, in a public forum*


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> your tagline for starters?
> 
> thought u were going



O yes. Clearly my tagline written in December has the capability to bring this community to its knees.

Your basic lack of literacy seems to have confused you into hallucinating a pledge from me to leave immediately.

Jesus. You make Benny from Crossroads look like Einstein.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on. Are you saying that you've never heard of the forum called The Files?
> It's *sole existence* is to stir up shit with urban75.
> 
> Thora certainly knows about them. Do you?



Yes, I do know about them, thanks.

Their *sole existence* is not to fuck up U75 at all. It's a place for people to discuss U75 issues without cluttering up the rest of the place.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> O yes. Clearly my tagline written in December has the capability to bring this community to its knees.
> 
> Your basic lack of literacy seems to have confused you into hallucinating a pledge from me to leave immediately.
> 
> Jesus. You make Benny from Crossroads look like Einstein.



look you twat, never in your wildest dreams could you bring this community down.

all i said was that u r disruptive. and less of the cunt, please


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes, I do know about them, thanks.
> 
> Their *sole existence* is not to fuck up U75 at all. It's a place for people to discuss U75 issues without cluttering up the rest of the place.



softly softly.....

is this what they call the 'wash'?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It's *sole existence* is to stir up shit with urban75.


They were created for the dual purpose of avoiding the creation of tensions between the two boards and also making sure discussion of u75 did not come to dominate the board itself and aimed to do so by restricting discussion of u75 to a private area.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> look you twat, never in your wildest dreams could you bring this community down.
> 
> all i said was that u r disruptive. and less of the cunt, please



And you seem to be having difficulty understanding that I've no interest in bringing the community down. And you have no evidence whatever that I've ever been disruptive here.

I'd really see someone about your reading comprehension problems.

Cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes, I do know about them, thanks.
> 
> Their *sole existence* is not to fuck up U75 at all. It's a place for people to discuss U75 issues without cluttering up the rest of the place.


err....I'm missing something here. why would TTgers need or want to discuss U75, over there?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

some do, some don't, Jezza.

What's the point of having new fora if they just exist to talk about another that everyone's left?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Yes, I do know about them, thanks.
> 
> Their *sole existence* is not to fuck up U75 at all. It's a place for people to discuss U75 issues without cluttering up the rest of the place.



Any personal stuff on them? Personal info about people? 

Onesided 'interpretations' of their posts by ex-bannees or their defenders? 

Categorisations of some Urbanites as touts, arselickers, hypocrites, cunts, responsible for getting people banned, etc.?

'Discuss U765 issues' my fucking arse .... forgive my fluent scepticese. Read gurrier's post for the inherent divisiveness and suspicion engendered by that sort of thing.

Then you blame some **Urbanites** for being 'obsessive'

Right, off to Newbury (well the films about them, in SE17) -- add that to the fucking files!! Instead of all the shit about me being a 'Guardian reading liberal racist' in them, undoubtedly ...

Is there ANY TTG person out there who STILL denies that this is not just or even primarily an Urban 75 problem any more?

Feel free to blame any problems all on Urban 75 though ....

(And I agree there's been some nasty stuff in BOTH directions and I don't condone any bad shit coming from here).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

I think using info obtained from someone hacking the restricted forums of another board sets a very dangerous precedent.


----------



## Shirl (Jan 31, 2006)

I have posted in TTG forums a couple of times but I won't be going back.

I have just seen something in their secret stuff where Ern says something about knowing where Wolfie lives and Fat Hamster tells him that Wolfie works from home.
As I live there too, I find these nutters too scary.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 31, 2006)

When Man United played Blackburn, at half time the players got a hint that there was a ruck going on in the tunnel - and all sprinted to join in.  Might sound patronising, but this feels the same.  Will be several people who put a lot of work in on both sides - or who have had their details posted up - who have a real reason to get involved.  Whether everybody else does ....

Suspect the outcome of this is not gonna be pretty


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I think using info obtained from someone hacking the restricted forums of another board sets a very dangerous precedent.



No denial of the info then?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I think using info obtained from someone hacking the restricted forums of another board sets a very dangerous precedent.



What about adding stuff to that area about someone, without person concerned being in any way aware of it, or having any right of reply?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> err....I'm missing something here. why would TTgers need or want to discuss U75, over there?


Why is a rather mute question. U75 _was_ being discussed in the public forums more often than we thought desirable.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No denial of the info then?


 What info - that little bit of fluff above? What do you think about using info obtained by hacking the restricted forums of another board - do you agree that it sets a _dangerous_ precedent? Do you agree that it's out of order?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Shirl said:
			
		

> I have posted in TTG forums a couple of times but I won't be going back.
> 
> I have just seen something in their secret stuff where Ern says something about knowing where Wolfie lives and Fat Hamster tells him that Wolfie works from home.
> As I live there too, I find these nutters too scary.



To all decent TTG people :


SORT IT THE FUCK OUT!!!!!

Right, off to Newbury related stuff ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> What about adding stuff to that area about someone, without person concerned being in any way aware of it, or having any right of reply?


 I don't understand what you're saying, but as you're here what do you think about using info obtained by hacking the restricted forums of another board - do you agree that it sets a dangerous precedent? Do you agree that it's out of order?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Any personal stuff on them? Personal info about people?
> 
> Onesided 'interpretations' of their posts by ex-bannees or their defenders?
> 
> ...



You are. Completely obsessed William.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What info - that little bit of fluff above? What do you think about using info obtained by hacking the restricted forums of another board - do you agree that it sets a _dangerous_ precedent? Do you agree that it's out of order?


No hacking involved as far as I know. I'd be very surprised if there was.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What info - that little bit of fluff above? What do you think about using info obtained by hacking the restricted forums of another board - do you agree that it sets a _dangerous_ precedent? Do you agree that it's out of order?



I agree its not great.  I have however seen some of the alledged info and certain people are looking like brown nosing hypocrites of the first order.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> No hacking involved as far as I know. I'd be very surprised if there was.



If there was no hacking then fairynuff.  What you say butchers?


----------



## rutabowa (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Why is a rather mute question. U75 _was_ being discussed in the public forums more often than we thought desirable.


"moot", not mute. sorry that gets to me


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Shirl said:
			
		

> I have posted in TTG forums a couple of times but I won't be going back.
> 
> I have just seen something in their secret stuff where Ern says something about knowing where Wolfie lives and Fat Hamster tells him that Wolfie works from home.
> As I live there too, I find these nutters too scary.



anyone want to comment on this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

There is hacking - that's where any 'info' is coming from. Think _very carefully_ here people.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> some do, some don't, Jezza.
> 
> What's the point of having new fora if they just exist to talk about another that everyone's left?


OK - i'm just finding it hard to grasp why people would still want to.
i do agree to keep it out of sight tho'.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> There is hacking - that's where any 'info' is coming from. Think _very carefully_ here people.



So no comment then?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> Is there ANY TTG person out there who STILL denies that this is not just or even primarily an Urban 75 problem any more?


Private forums in TTG being hacked is a problem for TTG. But other than that, no.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So no comment then?


 Not at this as time as my _legal_ team have advised me to say.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not at this as time as my _legal_ team have advised me to say.



So no comment on allegations that certain people are feeding a certain someone else personal info on U75 posters in a private forum on ttg?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> There is hacking - that's where any 'info' is coming from. Think _very carefully_ here people.


"Hacking" implies some sort of computer intrusion, exploiting board flaws etc. Like I said, I'd be immensely surprised if that had happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So no comment on allegations that certain people are feeding a certain someone else personal info on U75 posters in a private forum on ttg?


 See above. That's where the matter stands with me at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> "Hacking" implies some sort of computer intrusion, exploiting board flaws etc. Like I said, I'd be immensely surprised if that had happened.


 Well, put it like this - i'm currently in a considerably better position than you to judge whether this has taken place or not. And it has, and you're using info gained through it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> See above. That's where the matter stands with me at the moment.



If the allegations are true it's not going to reflect very well on any of you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well, put it like this - i'm currently in a considerably better position than you to judge whether this has taken place or not. And it has, and you're using info gained through it.



You appear to be obfuscating somewhat.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You appear to be obfuscating somewhat.


 No, that's clear as day if you read it back as a reply to the poster quoted in the post.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 31, 2006)




----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well, put it like this - i'm currently in a considerably better position than you to judge whether this has taken place or not. And it has, and you're using info gained through it.



Info that you denied existed.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

So the allegations are true then Butchers? You're seemingly more concerned about how the information was sourced rather than the content.

Two faced lying bastards then. PK may have been well out of line the other day, but I suspect that if someone had been putting up a load of shit about me on secret forums and then denying it point blank I may have got a little irate.

A shitty state of affairs. The slight possibility of hacking aside, this information shows the tg gulag in a very bad light. There have been some obvious liars here, or people with unbelievably forgetful memories. Hmmm...


----------



## bluestreak (Jan 31, 2006)

's funny how hacking always seems to be the excuse for everything these days, whether it's drug induced computer confusion, pissed up trolling, or trouble in paradise, it can always be blamed on hacking.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

I'll deal with other issues later, and in my own time, not yours. You're wrong though. Which is not now. Suffice to say, it's not a "slight possibility of hacking" - it's happened and the info has been used here by mods.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> See above. That's where the matter stands with me at the moment.



duly noted.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I think using info obtained from someone hacking the restricted forums of another board sets a very dangerous precedent.


How do you know the boards were "hacked"?

Oh, and just in case tries pointing the finger at me, I haven't the slightest clue about hacking or how to gaining unauthorised access to bulletin boards, and I'm 100% sure none of the mods 'hacked' anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

I'm off for a while now - meanwhile, here's soime reading to keep _certain people_ hands even busier...

http://www.macuser.co.uk/macuser/news/83023/uk-law-strengthened-to-tackle-cyber-criminals.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> How do you know the boards were "hacked"?
> 
> Oh, and just in case tries pointing the finger at me, I haven't the slightest clue about hacking or how to gaining unauthorised access to bulletin boards, and I'm 100% sure none of the mods 'hacked' anything.


 That's none of your business frankly.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm off for a while now - meanwhile, here's soime reading to keep _certain people_ hands even busier...


Are you saying a _criminal _act has taken place?!!!!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That's none of your business frankly.


Ooh. Put yer handbag away sweetie.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Not at this as time as my _legal_ team have advised me to say.


Legal team?!!! What's the charge?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm off for a while now - meanwhile, here's soime reading to keep _certain people_ hands even busier...
> 
> http://www.macuser.co.uk/macuser/news/83023/uk-law-strengthened-to-tackle-cyber-criminals.html




pop up bollox grassing?
do u have popups over there?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

*legal team comments*

He's trying it on, ignore it.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm off for a while now - meanwhile, here's soime reading to keep _certain people_ hands even busier...
> 
> http://www.macuser.co.uk/macuser/news/83023/uk-law-strengthened-to-tackle-cyber-criminals.html




Oh dear. How the mighty have fallen.


     

<passes BA his dummy>


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Jesus, that's weak Butchers. Instead of being honest enough to admit that many of the TG's top (invited to the special forum) members were in the wrong for hiding behind secret forums and slagging off u75 posters, moderators and publishing personal details, you're now darkly threatening legal action over how the information came out.

Does it matter how to be honest, the dishonest cunts who put up shit like this and lied like second rate tory politicans deserve to have been shown up to be the despicable, childish wankers they are. 

I have no idea about how to go about hacking or if it took place in this case, but frankly it seems like a justifiable use to me and it's hardly a matter of real concern. Some lying tossers have been shown up. Frankly they deserve all the criticism they get.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Hold on. Are you saying that you've never heard of the forum called The Files?
> It's *sole existence* is to stir up shit with urban75.
> 
> Thora certainly knows about them. Do you?


Yes, I know about them.  And I'm still of the opinion that however undesirable some of the content was, better it was in a private forum than a public one.


----------



## Shirl (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> however undesirable some of the content was, better it was in a private forum than a public one.


That doesn't make me feel any better.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Jesus, that's weak Butchers. Instead of being honest enough to admit that many of the TG's top (invited to the special forum) members were in the wrong for hiding behind secret forums and slagging off u75 posters, moderators and publishing personal details, you're now darkly threatening legal action over how the information came out.




If I were them and I had been caught out gathering personal information (as  is alleged to have happened viz ern and FH) I'd be more worried about the Data Protection Act biting me on the arse.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yes, I know about them.  And I'm still of the opinion that however undesirable some of the content was, better it was in a private forum than a public one.



 Eh? Surely it would have been better not to have been there at all? Equally there was no reason you folks should have given it your tacit approval by letting it continue and then lying about its existence.

it's not compulsory to keep a secret forum called the files, slagging off posters elsewhere and publishinh personal details to sneer at, you know?

And to think some TG members, who certainly knew about these files, got pissed off about banned u75ers being talked about becuase 'they couldn't defend themselves.'  Two faced hypocritical shitebags. So much for the brave new world of TG...


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

i wasn't going to get involved - too many people getting hurt in real life - but i honestly think there's something fundamentally wrong with a message board where it's showing 30 odd people online and only FIVE of those are browsing public forums.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> Instead of being honest enough to admit that many of the TG's top (invited to the special forum) members were in the wrong for hiding behind secret forums and slagging off u75 posters, moderators and publishing personal details


I for one don't think there is anything wrong with slagging off u75 posters and moderators in private. If ms and fm want to talk about how nasty a troll rednblack is for example in private then that's up to them. Our legal team is looking into whether anyone's address or other such proper personal info was posted. My personal opinion is that it is extremely unlikely.


> I have no idea about how to go about hacking or if it took place in this case, but frankly it seems like a justifiable use to me and it's hardly a matter of real concern.


You think it's acceptable to hack a message board to check it's private forums? Would it be ok if someone hacked u75 to see what discussions about people there are on its private forums? It is an extremely dangerous precedent.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

there are lots of very reasonable people on TG and i really don't understand why they allowed stuff like discussions of "wolfie working from home" etc to go on.

it just completely undermines all claims made about the purpose of TG. and it's indefensible


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i wasn't going to get involved - too many people getting hurt in real life - but i honestly think there's something fundamentally wrong with a message board where it's showing 30 odd people online and only FIVE of those are browsing public forums.


That many people are discussing how the board has been hacked isn't neither surprising nor indicative of anything very much.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> If I were them and I had been caught out gathering personal information (as  is alleged to have happened viz ern and FH) I'd be more worried about the Data Protection Act biting me on the arse.


I'd strongly recommend you dont consider a career in law or advice work in that case.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> That many people are discussing how the board has been hacked isn't neither surprising nor indicative of anything very much.




it's  not like it's the first time the boards have looked like that.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Eh? Surely it would have been better not to have been there at all? Equally there was no reason you folks should have given it your tacit approval by letting it continue and then lying about its existence.
> 
> it's not compulsory to keep a secret forum called the files, slagging off posters elsewhere and publishinh personal details to sneer at, you know?
> 
> And to think some TG members, who certainly knew about these files, got pissed off about banned u75ers being talked about becuase 'they couldn't defend themselves.'  Two faced hypocritical shitebags. So much for the brave new world of TG...



Can you provide examples of who has 'lied' about the existence of secret forums, on this thread or elsewhere please?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's  not like it's the first time the boards have looked like that.


Indeed not. For a couple of days all the junta did was have a massive bunfight over whether totty pictures should be allowed. There have been at least 2 huge threads on the files that dominated the postings of junta members for a period of time.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

surely the key thing at stake here is that hardly ANYONE on urban is a mod - perhaps 4 people regularly - so any private discussions are going to be pretty smalltime.

but if as it seems the editor etc have previously 'secret' material about what has been said in the TG private forums which is going to be very incriminating, there's not really a way for many people from over there to emerge looking very good.

if i posted details of wolfie's home and working practices online for malicious purposes on urban, i'd expect to be banned pretty quickly, if only because the transparency of urban would result in it.

whereas it seems clear that a great deal of personal detail and abuse goes on at TG precisely because the rank and file don't get to see it.

this is a QUALITATIVE difference which takes the credibility out of any TG claims that Urban is the source of its woes, or that they're more sinned against than sinning, and all that flannel


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Yep, he's nice and unassuming bloke in real life. Stig met him too. But he only met us for about five or ten minutes max ...



The same which has been said about *you * by some of the Junta members, as have *positive * things about the editor, dub and even pk ( until his last desperate act)!!!!!!

The liberal=fascist thing is just a wind up and you still insist on making it out to be some hateful personal slur and bringing it up with tedious regularity.Does it really matter that much William? On the scale of human suffering probably not?

Feelings are very mixed about those that have been identified or fingered as leading elements from TTG and Urban.But nobody is going to be banned for cyber space and nobody wants a board war so I guess everyone will just have to exist in a state of uneasy coexistence and organised mistrust.

It only takes a  few bits of rumours and heresay by those who claim to be in the know or the more reckless keyboard warriors and the whole thing goes up un the air. 

We have had rumours of moles, plans to hack files, posters claiming that so and so was secretly insulted, allegations of peoples home and work addreses being posted, the real names of posters in taglines etc. 

Not to mention a great deal of work by staff on both sides.

You would be one of the posters I would be looking for to set an example in playing a responsible role in keeping a lid on things.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> There have been at least 2 huge threads on the files that dominated the postings of junta members for a period of time.




so the files exist.

you're one of the most reasonable people there, GL, and somebody i respect a lot.

why did you think it was Ok to allow this 'Files' forum to exist, in private?


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I'd strongly recommend you dont consider a career in law or advice work in that case.



An organisation collecting personal information about people without their express consent?

Sound like it could fall under the DPA to me.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> You would be one of the posters I would be looking for to set an example in playing a responsible role in keeping a lid on things.



and what, pray tell, would YOUR role be, chuck?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> The liberal=fascist thing is just a wind up and you still insist on making it out to be some hateful personal slur and bringing it up with tedious regularity.Does it really matter that much William? On the scale of human suffering probably not?


Up to a point. But on the other hand if somebody does something, over and again, deliberately to upset somebody and wind them up, then (a) they should not do it and (b) it's not terribly surprising if somebody gets upset and wound up.

You know, don't provoke people and then complain when they're provoked, or something like that.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> You would be one of the posters I would be looking for to set an example in playing a responsible role in keeping a lid on things.



I could say the same about you.

I note that nobody had the nerve to use my office phone number that I sent you via PM and that you saw fit to share with the rest of the Junta in your secret forum.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Up to a point. But on the other hand if somebody does something, over and again, deliberately to upset somebody and wind them up, then (a) they should not do it and (b) it's not terribly surprising if somebody gets upset and wound up.
> 
> You know, don't provoke people and then complain when they're provoked, or something like that.




totally. this can even happen in friendships / relationships.

"why are you getting wound up?"
"because you keep XXXXX"
"yeh, but i'm only trying to wind you up"

etc.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> if i posted details of wolfie's home and working practices online for malicious purposes on urban


What's a malicious purpose? 


> this is a QUALITATIVE difference which takes the credibility out of any TG claims that Urban is the source of its woes, or that they're more sinned against than sinning, and all that flannel


Which woes? A massive bunfight about it on a different message board is, as a significant number of people plan to continue posting on both, irritating, but hardly the end of the world. The one woe is that someone has hacked ttg.


> surely the key thing at stake here is that hardly ANYONE on urban is a mod - perhaps 4 people regularly - so any private discussions are going to be pretty smalltime.


How do we know until we've used tarannau's justification of hacking into them to find out?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yes, I know about them.  And I'm still of the opinion that however undesirable some of the content was, better it was in a private forum than a public one.


But it wasn't really private, was it? It was accessed by a substantial number of specially invited urban75 posters for the sole purpose of acquiring personal information and material to be used to attack and/or troll the site at a later date.

In other words, its existence meant continuing extra work for the mods here and yet more pointless disruption on urban75.

Do you think that's right? Can't you see why I'm angry as fuck to see people who have personally got an awful lot out of urban75 setting up their own little forum to try and fuck it up?

I don't really care about the endless abuse that's been dished out to me (although I generally prefer it when people have the honesty to say it here rather than behind my back), but this hidden forumn adds up to nothing less than a campaign to actively disrupt urban75 - a campaign that seems to have the full approval of other members who do nothing to stop the trolling that's been openly discussed.

You may remember a period where I suddenly became unusually chipper -that was when I first heard of the TG.

Although I found the secret campaign of PM invites and nudge-nudge comments a little distasteful, I thought that all the posters who continually criticise, complain and attack me for the way I moderate these forums would be leaving soon.

So when the goading threads about P&P being like a tumbleweed desert went up, I took it in good spirit, knowing that those people would soon be leaving for their own forums.

But that didn't happen. Instead I was constantly getting PMs from TG members telling me of attacks on me, other members and plans to troll the site. And that was frankly disappointing.

And that's how I feel now. Very disappointed.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so the files exist.


They do indeed, I explained there purpose a couple of pages back.


> why did you think it was Ok to allow this 'Files' forum to exist, in private?


They were one solution to the problem of there being an excessive number of u75 related posts in the general forum, which we felt neither helped board relationships nor helped ttg develop its own identity. They were a solution I disagreed with but not one I though was morally wrong.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

> But it wasn't really private, was it?


It was not public which er makes it private.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> surely the key thing at stake here is that hardly ANYONE on urban is a mod - perhaps 4 people regularly - so any private discussions are going to be pretty smalltime.
> 
> but if as it seems *the editor etc * have previously 'secret' material about what has been said in the TG private forums which is going to be very incriminating, there's not really a way for many people from over there to emerge looking very good.
> 
> ...



The Editor etc??? What does that mean, the Editor and the mods? The Editor and the mods and you, the Editor the mods and you and Pk ? Or is PK now some sort of deputy Editor promoted from confidente? I think you have given a bit more away there Dub than you should have tbh.

And is someone saying that someone does most of there work form home really posting up details of anyones work or home?

Correct me if I am wrong but the only posters who I have ever heard who  has done anything like this are key players on Urban. Although I don't think for one minute that the Editor or you supported their actions.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> But it wasn't really private, was it? It was accessed by a substantial number of specially invited urban75 posters for the sole purpose of acquiring personal information and material to be used to attack and/or troll the site at a later date.


I don't think this is what the Files were used for - not to plan trolling, or to acquire personal information.  The purpose was someone for people to let off steam about U75 privately so as not to antagonise anyone here or clog up public forums.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> An organisation collecting personal information about people without their express consent?
> 
> Sound like it could fall under the DPA to me.


I refer the gentleman to my previous answer


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

But wasn't his answer an answer to your previous answer?


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I note that nobody had the nerve to use my office phone number that I sent you via PM and that you saw fit to share with the rest of the Junta in your secret forum.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> > surely the key thing at stake here is that hardly ANYONE on urban is a mod - perhaps 4 people regularly - so any private discussions are going to be pretty smalltime.
> 
> 
> How do we know until we've used tarannau's justification of hacking into them to find out?



To the best of my knowledge none of the mods on here keep personal files on anybody who has ever crossed them.

More than can be said for the obviously deeply disturbed ern. What is it with him anyway? Does he fantasise about being in the KGB or is it just some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> What's a malicious purpose?
> 
> ...






			
				the files said:
			
		

> I hope the Meibion pay him a visit - he lives not far from one of the Godfathers of Welsh Nationalism as well



...


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> But wasn't his answer an answer to your previous answer?


ummm, yes. but...?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

GL - any response to what Wolfie has posted?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> The Editor etc??? .




my use of the 'etc' is because i don't actually know.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> ummm, yes. but...?


I thought possibly a substantive reply?


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge none of the mods on here keep personal files on anybody who has ever crossed them.


Nor does Ern. The number of people who actually believe that, and the number of people who believed butchersapron was a wheelchair user continues to amaze me in it's illustration of people's gullability.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I note that nobody had the nerve to use my office phone number that I sent you via PM and that you saw fit to share with the rest of the Junta in your secret forum.


He did _that?_

   

That's really crossing the line. Why did the other Junta members put up with it?


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> But wasn't his answer an answer to your previous answer?



Yep.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> A massive bunfight about it on a different message board is, as a significant number of people plan to continue posting on both,


I fear some may find those plans being scuppered shortly.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Nor does Ern. The number of people who actually believe that, and the number of people who believed butchersapron was a wheelchair user continues to amaze me in it's illustration of people's gullability.



Ern keeps copies of old U75 threads that go back years does he not?

*clue* The answer is _"yes"_


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Nor does Ern. The number of people who actually believe that, and the number of people who believed butchersapron was a wheelchair user continues to amaze me in it's illustration of people's gullability.




if people heard on urban that butch was in a wheelchair, why wouldn't they believe it? it's not something that really qualifies as a 'joke', is it? so if you weren't privy to the origin of the comment (and i never was) you'd take it as face value. that's not gullibility.

and by extension, GL, all erns' other shit - about people being in far right groups etc - that got believed at face value too. and it's precisely because you have that vermin involved in TG that all your well-meant and genuine efforts are doomed, because he just won't ever give it up.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> GL - any response to what Wolfie has posted?


Give me time. I have many things to respond to, here and elsewhere. After discussion we can not recall wolfie's phone number being posted up. If it was I don't think that was acceptable.  

The 'malicious' threat sounds more like puerile posturing than anything malicious to me.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I could say the same about you.
> 
> I note that nobody had the nerve to use my office phone number that I sent you via PM and that you saw fit to share with the rest of the Junta in your secret forum.




why did you give chuck your phone number??


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> The 'malicious' threat sounds more like puerile posturing than anything malicious to me.



if i threaten somebody in the street, the judge may not find a defence of 'puerile posturing' very convincing.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Why did the other Junta members put up with it?


We didn't, or at least noone I can communicate with via ttg or pms believes it to  have existed.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> The 'malicious' threat sounds more like puerile posturing than anything malicious to me.



Easy to say that when you get caught out isn't it?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

There's been some utterly pitiful and barrel-scraping posts on there where at least two of their posters (including an admin) try to promote the defamatory claim that I'm a racist.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Easy to say that when you get caught out isn't it?


I'd be very surprised if anyone has anything on me.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> why did you give chuck your phone number??




does that really matter?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Easy to say that when you get caught out isn't it?




to be fair, longdog, from the little i've seen on or about TG, General Ludd has done his best to curb the worst excesses.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Ern keeps copies of old U75 threads that go back years does he not?


Lots of people have saved threads from years back. I save copies of threads I want to keep. That's not the same as personal files.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

might do, might not. it just seemed a bit odd as I didn't think the pair had that much in common


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> I'd be very surprised if anyone has anything on me.



I was using "you" in the collective sense.

I've just had a PM by the way.

Apparently "I" was banned from TG earlier this week.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> You are. Completely obsessed William.



Cleverly ignoring my point that one or two (only) of your lot are too -- to the point of mania, and to the point of risking harmonious relations between the two forums -- relations which would be and should be perfectly possible, without one or two embttered arseholes, not all on one side ...

Glad you think I'm mainly responsible though.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> might do, might not. it just seemed a bit odd as I didn't think the pair had that much in common



it's up to wolfie to reveal or not why chuck had it. regardless of that, why did chuck feel it was ok to share it here.

i have Krs' phone number. how would you feel if i shared it in a private forum on here, for purposes which if not malicious were certainly not well meaning.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> to be fair, longdog, from the little i've seen on or about TG, General Ludd has done his best to curb the worst excesses.



Seconded ....


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> Apparently "I" was banned from TG earlier this week.


Quite possibly. Your were you recall gulagged after your trolling. The conversion of that to a banning won't be shocking.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and what, pray tell, would YOUR role be, chuck?



I thought as you were an avid reader, along with ,as you claim the Editor etc, of The Files that you would know what my role is. 

If you aren't a good reader , it is this. I am a member of a group of posters who wish to see TTG a success , would want to see this board continue to be a success and who also wish to continue to post on these boards. 

I have very little history with any posters here ( a couple of little exchanges with you but we have in truth never sought each other out  and continued these spats), I have never been banned and get on with posters from both sites.

The best way forward is for those who really have no big personal axe to grind or those that are big enough and those that aren't completely entrenched to come to some sort of pact to keep the lid on things on both sides. Keeping those who for what ever reason cannot do this from fucking things up and escalating things.

As I said some of my colleagues on TTG have said that Willaim is a good bloke in real life. I ahev nver met him but I have no reason to disbelieve their judgement. I am therefor trying to appeall to the good bloke in him, and to you Dub if you want to take my offer.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> why did you give chuck your phone number??



I'd sent him a very bad tempered PM after getting involved in an argument with him on here and I'd burnt my dinner as a result.
He pointed out that he didn't think that was a very responsible way for a mod to behave so I sent an apologetic PM back including the number of my office phone (I work from home) so he coould phone to discuss it if he wanted.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> to be fair, longdog, from the little i've seen on or about TG, General Ludd has done his best to curb the worst excesses.



See my qualification above.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> There's been some utterly pitiful and barrel-scraping posts on there where at least two of their posters (including an admin) try to promote the defamatory claim that I'm a racist.



Well that's only partially true isn't it- on that very thread those posters making that claim were told to pipe down and stop making accusations that were clearly untrue.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> We didn't, or at least noone I can communicate with via ttg or pms believes it to  have existed.


Strange, because I can see it, plain enough!

It was posted by Chuck Wilson on Wed Dec 14, 2005, at 8:24 pm.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Deleted as editor provided more information that shall be checked upon.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Well that's only partially true isn't it- on that very thread those posters making that claim were told to pipe down and stop making accusations that were clearly untrue.


The defamatory comments are still there for all to read.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I thought as you were an avid reader, along with ,as you claim the Editor etc, of The Files that you would know what my role is.



i have already pointed out that i haven't seen these files and don't know who has.
sorry to disappoint.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Glad you think I'm mainly responsible though.



I never said that William, as you well know.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The defamatory comments are still there for all to read.



I think you'll find that they aren;t.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Quite possibly. Your were you recall gulagged after your trolling. The conversion of that to a banning won't be shocking.



I'm still in the Gulag. Apparently (according to my scources) another poster was banned after being accused of being my alter-ego.

Nice to feel loved isn't it?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I think you'll find that they aren;t.


Has someone moved them at last? Good.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> It was posted by Chuck Wilson on Wed Dec 14, 2005, at 8:24 pm.


If at all possible could you pm or email me a copy of that thread, it has since been deleted.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Has someone moved them at last? Good.



Your "mole" isn't that reliable, eh?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Jesus, that's weak Butchers. Instead of being honest enough to admit that many of the TG's top (invited to the special forum) members were in the wrong for hiding behind secret forums and slagging off u75 posters, moderators and publishing personal details, you're now darkly threatening legal action over how the information came out.
> 
> Does it matter how to be honest, the dishonest cunts who put up shit like this and lied like second rate tory politicans deserve to have been shown up to be the despicable, childish wankers they are.
> 
> I have no idea about how to go about hacking or if it took place in this case, but frankly it seems like a justifiable use to me and it's hardly a matter of real concern. Some lying tossers have been shown up. Frankly they deserve all the criticism they get.



Spot on.

In answer to the question butchers asked me just after I left work, no, hacking isn't brilliant, don't like it much at all.

But what tarannau says above is far more important.

You'd be doing yourself, and TTG,  a lot of favours butchers  if (at some stage) you admitted you've got a fuckin huge problem with one or two (only) of your rogue colleagues.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

On reflection that date is extremely early. It's actually from before ttg even had private forums, or indeed a dedicate website rather than a free board on some website dedicated to such things.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Your "mole" isn't that reliable, eh?




tbh, and i'm not saying this IS happening, but it's not inconceivable that if these allegations were being made, there would be a lot of very quicky deletions at TG. surely you're not saying that couldn't happen?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Deleted as editor provided more information that shall be checked upon.






			
				the files said:
			
		

> chuck wilson
> Junta
> Joined: 28 Nov 2005
> Posts: 689
> ...



....


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> tbh, and i'm not saying this IS happening, but it's not inconceivable that if these allegations were being made, there would be a lot of very quicky deletions at TG. surely you're not saying that couldn't happen?



can you point me to where I said it couldn't happen?

Editor claimed that "defamatory comments" were still available for "all to see".

They aren;t.
End of.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

chuck - anything to offer on that, since it's looking pretty bad for you


----------



## Oxpecker (Jan 31, 2006)

Meanwhile back in the real world...........



I honestly can't believe that the setting up of a bulletin board is causing so many normally rational people to behave so obsessively.

It's like a bleedin lunatic asylum in here.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Meanwhile back in the real world...........
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yeh,  but come in. i never posted on TG till it became clear what was happening. i didn't invite the trouble and didn't want to post there, and i'd given up discussing TG over here too. TG - some constructively, others by allowing this shit to go on - seem to have very much brough this on themselves


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Eh? Surely it would have been better not to have been there at all? Equally there was no reason you folks should have given it your tacit approval by letting it continue and then lying about its existence.
> 
> it's not compulsory to keep a secret forum called the files, slagging off posters elsewhere and publishinh personal details to sneer at, you know?
> 
> And to think some TG members, who certainly knew about these files, got pissed off about banned u75ers being talked about becuase 'they couldn't defend themselves.'  Two faced hypocritical shitebags. So much for the brave new world of TG...



You knows it ...

I've bneen indignantly shouted at for _daring_ to criticise former Urbanites in their absence and inability to reply,

No doubt the feelings were mutual though ...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> can you point me to where I said it couldn't happen?
> 
> Editor claimed that "defamatory comments" were still available for "all to see".


I do apologise. I haven't had time to check every thing twice over.

But I do hope you're not going to be so silly as to suggest that the comments _weren't _up on your boards for some time?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

No. Unlike your good self, who's refusing to acknowledge that the posters concerned were shouted at to behave themselves and stop making ridiculous comments.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> You would be one of the posters I would be looking for to set an example in playing a responsible role in keeping a lid on things.



No time to reply to all your post now, but look at my other posts throughout this thread up tp page 25 anyway. Pretty reasonable and fair, in the circumstances, I think you'd agree.


----------



## General Ludd (Jan 31, 2006)

Thank you wolfie. 

As I said earlier, posting someone's address, phone number or similar such details 
is unacceptable and should have been deleted. (In Chuck's defence if I'd recieved that pm I would have assummed it was a joke number)

I can make no further comment now as I have a Nick Cave gig to run to.



> But I do hope you're not going to be so silly as to suggest that the comments weren't up on your boards for some time?


A private thread (certainly not one 'available for all to see') in which you were accused of racism and in which those accusations were shown to be false and the posters making those accusations were told to stop talking bollocks did exist, and I see no reason why it should have been immediatly deleted.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> No. Unlike your good self, who's refusing to acknowledge that the posters concerned were shouted at to behave themselves and stop making ridiculous comments.


Have they stopped then?


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Why not ask your 'mole'?


----------



## revol68 (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What info - that little bit of fluff above? What do you think about using info obtained by hacking the restricted forums of another board - do you agree that it sets a _dangerous_ precedent? Do you agree that it's out of order?



as much as i've always enjoyed your posts on Urban and Libcom I think your really on to a bad one with this pathetic defense.

I mean "hacking"? I mean wise up u know it's not very likely. More like some one on the secret forums told someone who told someone.

As for the tolling gang boards themselves, from what little I saw in my glorious 2 hours lol, they seemed pretty uncontroversial. Well apart from the fact it's like Libcom but you know the LadyBird edition with trots and stalinists posting. Oh and the a few of the mods are medicore libcom or urban posters at best.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Thank you wolfie.
> 
> As I said earlier, posting someone's address, phone number or similar such details
> is unacceptable and should have been deleted.
> ...



enjoy the gig, GL (i'm there on Thursday). when you get back - was Chuck threatened with any kind of action for posting wolfie's personal details?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Why not ask your 'mole'?


Molely's underground at the moment looking for some juicy fat worms to eat.

But here's a picture in case you're missing her (or is it a him? Bit hard to see, really....)


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> enjoy the gig, GL (i'm there on Thursday). when you get back - was Chuck threatened with any kind of action for posting wolfie's personal details?


I personally don't remember that thread, but I agree posting someone's number is totally out of order.  I'm certainly interested in looking up what happened there.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

He didn;t post his personal details.

The inplication is that we have all passed around Wolfie's home address, etc.

*None of us know that. Nor are we interested.*

His work number was contained in a PM which he freely volunteered in a bout of sarcastic pique after some argument or other on here (the "Troll of the Year", I believe).

Those are the only personal details of wolfie's that anyone on that site knows.

And, as far as I know, no one is remotely interested in finding out what his personal details are.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Molely's underground at the moment looking for some juicy fat worms to eat.
> 
> But here's a picture in case you're missing her (or is it a him? Bit hard to see, really....)





If you weren't so transparent, you'd be a lot funnier.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

i don't care about the level of interest - that's just fucking wordgames and you know it - i'm interested in the fact that Chuck posted wolfie's phone number and it stayed there.

and it's NOT the only personal details anybody knows - ern knows exactly where wolfie lives and has made threats on that basis.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Some ttg posters are being very disingenous and they know it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> He didn;t post his personal details.
> 
> The inplication is that we have all passed around Wolfie's home address, etc.
> 
> ...



You're underplaying  the more *generally* unacceptable at the ,oment, IMO.

I'm off out now.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i don't care about the level of interest - that's just fucking wordgames and you know it - i'm interested in the fact that Chuck posted wolfie's phone number and it stayed there.
> 
> and it's NOT the only personal details anybody knows - ern knows exactly where wolfie lives and has made threats on that basis.



No he doesn't, dubversion. Unless you can show me a quote where ern claims to know where wolfie lives.

I;d be interested to see these 'threats', too. becuase, from earlier in the thread, it seems that wolfie;s partner is unduly worried about people being in possession iof home addresses etc.

They aren't.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

To be clear- I think it unacceptable that a work phone number was posted. however, the information was volunteered by Wolfie himself.

however the third hand rumours pinging about here are having a bit of a Chinese whispers effect.

No one knows where Wolfie/Shirl live. And no one is interested in finding out, either.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> To be clear- I think it unacceptable that a work phone number was posted. however, the information was volunteered by Wolfie himself.


It was in a pm though so that he volunteered it is irrelevant.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Not in the context of an accusation that we're all squirreling around desperately trying to uncover people's personal details, posting them, then sniggering.

We're simply not.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Not in the context of an accusation that we're all squirreling around desperately trying to uncover people's personal details, posting them, then sniggering.
> 
> We're simply not.


You're right, that's not happening.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Not in the context of an accusation that we're all squirreling around desperately trying to uncover people's personal details, posting them, then sniggering.
> 
> We're simply not.



A certain person is collecting people's details and certain other people are obliging him with them.  At least that's what it looks like anyhow.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> A certain person is collecting people's details and certain other people are obliging him with them.  At least that's what it looks like anyhow.


Well, it doesn't look like that to me.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> ....
> No one knows where Wolfie/Shirl live. And no one is interested in finding out, either.



at least two members of the junta have our address - one because we offered, through this site, to give them a stove, and the other because they organised the music CD swapping thing.
Although I have no way of knowing wether they shared that info or not, but it does make me slightly nervous and certainly undermines any trust I may have had in those posters ...


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Well, I'm pointing out to you that that isn't the case.

Wolfie's work number was posted (a mistake, i concede) in a thread. That is it.

I'm not sure of your definition of 'information gathering', but learning, incidentally, the telephone number of someone I have no intention of contacting certainl;y isn;t mine.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I thought possibly a substantive reply?


ok

a)  i doubt that TTG could be considered an 'organisaton' withn the terms of the act
b) information gleaned from puvlic access websites would be considered by the DPA to be in the public domain so not covered
c) PM's would be considered (I believe) the property of the person they were sent to - again, not covered by the act.

Were U75's user accounts database hacked and posted up, that _might_ just possibly be covered (if a above is incorrect), but otherwise...nada.


And note - the above certainly does not mean i 'approve' of Wolfies phone number being posted up (I was entirely unaware that it had been until this thread)


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> No one knows where Wolfie/Shirl live. And no one is interested in finding out, either.




ern knows. i was there when he admitted as much, and referred to a nearby business which made it clear that he did too.

stop trying to defend the indefensible.

this is going to be TG's downfall - not so much that they allowed their worst posters (relatively few in number) get away with all this shit, but that they feel compelled to defend it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Since a full-scale Board War would obviously mean mutually assured destruction, and since peaceful co-existence between U75 and the anti-U75 is by definition impossible, may I suggest that this matter be settled by the ancient method of single combat?  Let each board select its "Champion" (Ernesto vs. PK would probably be good value) everyone else clear the field, and allow the two of them to go at it for...oooh... about six weeks.  The loser's board members would then have to join the winner's board as "second-class" posters, but once they'd accepted their servile status they would probably be happier than anyone is at present.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> at least two members of the junta have our address - one because we offered, through this site, to give them a stove, and the other because they organised the music CD swapping thing.
> Although I have no way of knowing wether they shared that info or not it does make me slightly nervous ...



I have been on the junta since the beginning and have no idea what your address is, nor has anyone ever asked for it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Well, it doesn't look like that to me.



From what I've seen, it looks very much like that to me and I think certain people off ttg know _exactly_ what I'm on about.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> ern knows. i was there when he admitted as much, and referred to a nearby business which made it clear that he did too.
> 
> stop trying to defend the indefensible.
> 
> this is going to be TG's downfall - not so much that they allowed their worst posters (relatively few in number) get away with all this shit, but that they feel compelled to defend it.



Quote and posting time please. otherwise i don't believe this.

the most ern knows is the town where wolfie lives.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Well, I'm pointing out to you that that isn't the case.
> 
> Wolfie's work number was posted (a mistake, i concede) in a thread. That is it.
> 
> I'm not sure of your definition of 'information gathering', but learning, incidentally, the telephone number of someone I have no intention of contacting certainl;y isn;t mine.



I'm not on about Wolfie's phone number.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> And note - the above certainly does not mean i 'approve' of
> Wolfies phone number being posted up (I was entirely unaware that it had been until this thread)



what i find astonishing is that in almost every instance where TG posters have had to accept that what they've been accused of is in fact true, everybody then claims not to have seen it, and to disapprove of it with hindsight.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I have been on the junta since the beginning and have no idea what your address is, nor has anyone ever asked for it.




thank you for that - I can take the bucket of water from under the letter box now and sleep safely in my bed ...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> From what I've seen, it looks very much like that to me and I think certain people off ttg know _exactly_ what I'm on about.


Those certain people aren't me then obviously.

I really am sad it's all come to this


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Quote and posting time please. otherwise i don't believe this.
> 
> the most ern knows is the town where wolfie lives.




it was on soulseek in a chat room, so i have no such details. but ern knows it, and knows wolfie, i and all the other people in the chatroom at the time know it too.

why are you defending him? is it because they're his boards?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Were U75's user accounts database hacked and posted up, that _might_ just possibly be covered (if a above is incorrect), but otherwise...nada.


oh, and if the above were (legally) true, and the ed had sued passwords gleaned (somehow) from this site to guess TTG mods' passwords, then _he_ (or whoever did so) would be guilty of a breach of the DPA.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what i find astonishing is that in almost every instance where TG posters have had to accept that what they've been accused of is in fact true, everybody then claims not to have seen it, and to disapprove of it with hindsight.


There are a lot of threads Dub, and I certainly haven't read a lot of threads and a lot of posts, especially those relating to Urban - I'm sure others are the same.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Those certain people aren't me then obviously.



nobody said they were - i'm certainly not tarring all TG posters with the same brush.

what i AM doing is suggesting that if you'd have all worked to curb the worst excesses of ern, swarthy et al, this wouldn't be happening. and i fear it's only going to become even more awkward, both for those offending and those letting them.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what i find astonishing is that in almost every instance where TG posters have had to accept that what they've been accused of is in fact true, everybody then claims not to have seen it, and to disapprove of it with hindsight.


I dont read every thread by a long challk, ones which dont look interesting to me, I ignore. Ther has been a report post button instaled, so hopefully should any similar incident occur, someone will use it.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> I dont read every thread by a long challk, ones which dont look interesting to me, I ignore. Ther has been a report post button instaled, so hopefully should any similar incident occur, someone will use it.




and who gets to decide what's acceptable? the mods and the junta?

which contains - wait for it - all the people who are being implicated in all this shit.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> nobody said they were - i'm certainly not tarring all TG posters with the same brush.
> 
> what i AM doing is suggesting that if you'd have all worked to curb the worst excesses of ern, swarthy et al, this wouldn't be happening. and i fear it's only going to become even more awkward, both for those offending and those letting them.


Tbh, I find it hard to make myself care too much about people bitching about each other on the internet.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Why don't you guys on ttg just come out with what we all know anyway and actually have the balls to do something about it?  Namely that ern plays the major part in all this.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why don't you guys on ttg just come out with what we all know anyway and actually have the balls to do something about it?  Namely that ern plays the major part in all this.


In all what exactly?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and who gets to decide what's acceptable? the mods and the junta?


yes


> which contains - wait for it - all the people who are being implicated in all this shit.


not 'all' by any means.  Had the junta as a whoile been aware of  it, I have no doubt whatsoever it would have been removed. immediately.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Tbh, I find it hard to make myself care too much about people bitching about each other on the internet.




even when that extends to:

1) it spilling over into real life and causing great upset
2) insinuations of corruption and threats to report someone to the inland revenue?
3) continuous accusations of racism?
4) publishing of person phone numbers?

on a website you're involved in.

that's not bitching, is it thora? that's pretty reprehensible stuff. and that's just what we've seen so far


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> In all what exactly?



Stop being so disengenous, you know what I mean.  You just don't have the balls to admit it or do anything about it.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> the most ern knows is the town where wolfie lives.



well seeing as there are only 14 houses in the "town" I live in ....


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> not 'all' by any means.  Had the junta as a whoile been aware of  it, I have no doubt whatsoever it would have been removed. immediately.



you misunderstand - i didn't say all the junta and mods were implicated, i said all those implicated were in the mods and or junta


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Stop being so disengenous, you know what I mean.  You just don't have the balls to admit it or do anything about it.


I wasn't being disengenous, I just wasn't sure what you want me to admit too - that ern's heavily involved in the running of TTG or the bitching about Urban?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

let's try this another way.

rightly or wrongly shirl - who like Pie Eye has done nothing to any of the people perceived as a problem here - isn't entirely sure that she's safe, because of comments made on TG in private forums, and the details revealed therein.

whether those comments were macho posturing, do you think it's acceptable that she should be made to feel this way?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

I suppose it's to be expected when the junta contains members who make smoothies from tinned fruit  ...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> even when that extends to:
> 
> 1) it spilling over into real life and causing great upset
> 2) insinuations of corruption and threats to report someone to the inland revenue?
> ...


Yes, phone numbers shouldn't have been published.  But the rest seems to be bitching to me.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yes, phone numbers shouldn't have been published.  But the rest seems to be bitching to me.




you have a very strange idea of what constitutes bitching then.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you have a very strange idea of what constitutes bitching then.


Actually, I have as much of a problem with people revealing details of conversations in private forums.  Just as bad as revealing pms imo.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Not that I'm advocating it, but I can't help wondering what would happen if there *was* a full-scale Board War.  That is, if the Mods and the Junta were to order all their members to invade each others' boards flaming and trolling as fiercely as they could.  Who would win?  Obviously U75 has the numbers, but TG has some hardcore nutters who would surely put up a pretty effective guerilla resistance.  It would be a damned close-run thing if you ask me.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2006)

My tuppence worth, as someone not too involved:

While tolling gangers have been naive in assuming their 'secret' forum would stay secret, and have also allowed the modding in said forum to be a bit lax, thus allowing some of the bitching to go too far, I don't think I've actually seen evidence here of an orchestrated campaign against urban - just a few saddoes obsessed with urban who should have been reigned in and weren't.

I don't see why that should be irresolvable, particularly if people are able to admit that mistakes have been made and learn from them.

 I plan to solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict later this year so this is all good practice 

PS I think we can all agree on one thing: fuck off phildwyer


----------



## Crispy (Jan 31, 2006)

9pm, Windrush Square, Friday. No blades


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you misunderstand - i didn't say all the junta and mods were implicated, i said all those implicated were in the mods and or junta


no, I know - but you're still wrong, not all of those implicated are on the junta.  Not quite.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> 9pm, Windrush Square, Friday. No blades


No blades?  Liberal


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

i think a lot of what you say is true, brainaddict, but i'd go further (and it will do me no good, i fear) - while certain posters, and i'm happy to name Ern, Swarthy and IS in this, and i suspect Anna Key (although he did actually do the right thing on one thread i know about, for which i'm grateful) are in some way in positions of influence on TG (junta or mds), i don't see how they have a chance - all the good work others try and do will be undermined.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> If you weren't so transparent, you'd be a lot funnier.


I love it when you get it sooooo wrong!


----------



## Radar (Jan 31, 2006)

Wow, more people reading UK politics than general just now.

I wonder why


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Not in the context of an accusation that we're all squirreling around desperately trying to uncover people's personal details, posting them, then sniggering..


Really?!!! What about this utterly disgraceful and despicable attempt by your *admin* to dig up private and personal information about garf?

(this really stinks, by the way)


> ernestolynch
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> How old is he, what job does he do, and what is his education, please?
> (Parental background would be helpful, also, tovarisch)
> ...


(+++ = details removed for privacy)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I wasn't being disengenous, I just wasn't sure what you want me to admit too - that ern's heavily involved in the running of TTG or the bitching about Urban?



You're not usually this stupid Thora.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're not usually this stupid Thora.


Nice.  Genuinely though - the running ot ttg or the bitching?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie is being more than disengenous here by not admitting the context of all this. Just so that there is afull transparancy Wolfie why not us both put all the Pms on here?? 

I pm'd you as you had added your personal comment to a thread after it had been closed by the Editor by using your privileges to open it up. I sent you a Pm seeking your view on whether that was ethical. My pm to you short and polite.You can feel free to post the whole reply you made up on here but concluded:

*' Now fuck off and don't dare bother me again you nasty little scum bag'*

I didn't report that post but i did pm you back suggesting that you were abusing you role as mod.I still think that is the case and I don't think that such abuse is right in either a pm or from amod.

You sent me your reply , which although sarcastic I took in good humour as a joke (tbh I thought it deserved a wry smile). I honestly thought the number was a wind up and if I had rung it it probably would have been a joke line or some line that charged about £3 a minute.

I shared your little joke with others , with as you have shown absolutely no comment but the fact that i was surprised to get such a response from you. 

I have never used the number  and as far as I am aware everybody else took it as a joke but if it is a real number what was the point of giving it to me if you called me a 'nasty little scumbag' in the previous pm?

Bit devious.  
Perhaps i should have tested it out and then deleted it? 

My conscience is clear and anyone trying to use this as an example of any underhand behaviour on my part is barking up the wrong tree.


If it is your number woukld you like me to ring you later??


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Radar said:
			
		

> Wow, more people reading UK politics than general just now.
> 
> I wonder why




and I see ern popped in under the guise of SobNock to see the fun ...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> oh, and if the above were (legally) true, and the ed had sued passwords gleaned (somehow) from this site to guess TTG mods' passwords, then _he_ (or whoever did so) would be guilty of a breach of the DPA.


For the record, I have *not* given out _any_ urban75 passwords to any third party, friend, relative, acquaintance or pet mole by any means, neither have I 'hacked' the site in any shape or form.

I have never had access to any private forums on the TG, neither have I sought to do so.

Anyone suggesting that I've been involved in any kind of 'leaking' of personal information or hacking had best have some rock solid evidence or they will be banned on sight.

I didn't start this shit and a part of me wishes I didn't get to see the back-stabbing bollocks going on, but the mole's out of the bag now and if someone wants to send me material showing what's going on there, I'll continue to check it out.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Nice.



It was a compliment.




			
				Thora said:
			
		

> Genuinely though - the running ot ttg or the bitching?



Its quite clear what I mean.  But I'll spell it out to you as you appear to be deliberatly obstinate tonight - ern is one of the main instigators in this row and him remaining a mod on ttg is bad form, but some people on ttg don't have the balls to do anything about it.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> fuck off phildwyer



OK, how about this solution, this time drawn from anthropology.  When violent conflict breaks out between two tribes of the upper Amazon basin, each side will often select a ritual "scapegoat," expel him from their village, and allow their opponents to vent their hostility on him alone.  Their aggression is thus effectively purged with minimal impact on their day-to-day activities.  I think Brainaddict would be an excellent candidate for the U75 scapegoat.  Actually, he could probably be TG's scapegoat as well.  Both boards could have a "Brainaddict forum" dedicated exclusively to the abuse of that individual.  Good healthy fun, no more bitching and backbiting, everyone's happy.  I reckon it would work anyway...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> and I see ern popped in under the guise of SobNock to see the fun ...


Really?

 

Still, I'm sure they'll be quick to ban such a persistently disruptive, board-war stirring troll in line with their stated mission statement.

Err, won't they?

No? Why not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> For the record, I have *not* given out _any_ urban75 passwords to any third party, friend, relative, acquaintance or pet mole by any means, neither have I 'hacked' the site in any shape or form.
> 
> I have never had access to any private forums on the TG, neither have I sought to do so.
> 
> ...


 Oh but you are involved in the hacking ed, you're in it up to your eyeballs. A little mole tells me so.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really?!!! What about this utterly disgraceful and despicable attempt by your *admin* to dig up private and personal information about garf?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given the topic of the thread that got me confined to the gulag over their that is quite ironic.

It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

I'll assume for the time being that it *doesn't* give me the right to spill the beans on the personal information I know about some of the people above.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yes, phone numbers shouldn't have been published.


OK, I've kept well out of this till now, but if my phone number and details are being bandied about I'll go postal like you've never seen in even in your worst nightmares...I've had a shitty enough day discovering that both me and Blind Lemon are victims of ID theft and are being pursued for thousands of pounds worth of stuff because of fraud from our previous address. Over the last week my whole family have been plagued with nasty prank calls and I WILL involve the police.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Actually, I have as much of a problem with people revealing details of conversations in private forums.  Just as bad as revealing pms imo.


_World of difference _between a private PM sent to one person and trolling threads posted on a forum read by 40+ specially invited posters (the majority of whom are from urban75), I'd say.

What do you reckon?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Its quite clear what I mean.  But I'll spell it out to you as you appear to be deliberatly obstinate tonight - ern is one of the main instigators in this row and him remaining a mod on ttg is bad form, but some people on ttg don't have the balls to do anything about it.


Yep, we'll definitely be making decisions based on people's opinions here


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Yep, we'll definitely be making decisions based on people's opinions here



Maybe I was wrong, you do seem to be stupid.  Oh well.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> no, I know - but you're still wrong, not all of those implicated are on the junta.  Not quite.


Shall I post up the 40-odd members of 'The Files' - you know the secret forum on TTG explicitly set up to store files, personal information and material useful for trolling urban75?

That way we can know _exactly_ who was aware of what was going on and there'll be no confusion as to who was involved.

What do you reckon? Might be a start, no?


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> My tuppence worth, as someone not too involved:
> 
> While tolling gangers have been naive in assuming their 'secret' forum would stay secret, and have also allowed the modding in said forum to be a bit lax, thus allowing some of the bitching to go too far, I don't think I've actually seen evidence here of an orchestrated campaign against urban - just a few saddoes obsessed with urban who should have been reigned in and weren't.
> 
> I don't see why that should be irresolvable, particularly if people are able to admit that mistakes have been made and learn from them.



Thank you

You lot up there (especially the mods). You do realise that the ones you really don't like aren't in any danger at all from all this? They don't know anyone offline.

You do understand that there are innocent parties being hurt here don't you?

You do realise that it's your 'revelations' of things that need not be made public that's doing the hurting?

Please stop this. It can only make people unhappy. It's making me unhappy. It's making me fear for my friends' happiness, my friendships and my social life.

I've never intended to hurt anyone, I've spent time trying to stop conflict from happening. It's happening anyway but you can just stop if you want to.

It's not a fucking game. It's real life, real people are getting upset. Take the lead and show that you're the bigger man by just IGNORING IT.

I'm asking this as someone who is friends with several people on here.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> _World of difference _between a private PM sent to one person and trolling threads posted on a forum read by 40+ specially invited posters (the majority of whom are from urban75), I'd say.
> 
> What do you reckon?


Well, as I clearly just said, no I don't think there's much of a difference.  I think the way you've gone about this has been pretty shit actually.

Edited to add - for the reasons JTG has listed above.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

Oi Thora, please answer my question.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Anyone suggesting that I've been involved in any kind of 'leaking' of personal information or hacking had best have some rock solid evidence or they will be banned on sight.


I was merely making a point to longdog, no accusation meant.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Oi Thora, please answer my question.


Sorry Mrs. M, what did you ask?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

so Thora - we're supposed to walk away from this (for the reasons listed by JTG and that i understand) despite the MASSIVE abuses of trust and the like carried out in The Files? with no guarantee that it won't happen again

doesn't that seem a little, you know, one-sided


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Shall I post up the 40-odd members of 'The Files' - you know the secret forum on TTG explicitly set up to store files, personal information and material useful for trolling urban75?
> 
> That way we can know _exactly_ who was aware of what was going on and there'll be no confusion as to who was involved.
> 
> What do you reckon? Might be a start, no?


I have no objection, tho others might.  Probably not, as its not a 'big secret'.

It would not have revealed who knew what was going on entirely tho, as that would assume that everyone read every thread, which is obviously not true.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Sorry Mrs. M, what did you ask?


Scroll back. I am so livid, my kids have been scared and I am really terrifying when my family are threatened.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so Thora - we're supposed to walk away from this (for the reasons listed by JTG and that i understand) despite the MASSIVE abuses of trust and the like carried out in The Files? with no guarantee that it won't happen again
> 
> doesn't that seem a little, you know, one-sided


Tbh Dub it's getting to the point where I really don't care what anyone does.  Do whatever makes you happiest.  It's not like I can give you any guarantees anyway.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

it was quite a big secret belboid - i'd warrant almost nobody not using The Files knew about them before today


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Oh but you are involved in the hacking ed, you're in it up to your eyeballs. A little mole tells me so.


You have just one post to back this up or you're banned.



			
				editor said:
			
		

> Anyone suggesting that I've been involved in any kind of 'leaking' of personal information or hacking had best have some rock solid evidence or they will be banned on sight.


Again:
I have not hacked the TTG website.
I have not given out any personal information from our database
I have not passed on any u75 passwords to anyone
I have never directly accessed the TG secret forums

It's up to you, butchers. 

It's bad enough getting slagged off on your boards but I'm not having defamatory lies about me posted here.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Scroll back. I am so livid, my kids have been scared and I am really terrifying when my family are threatened.


Are you asking if your details were posted anywhere?  I certainly haven't seen them, and would have objected if I saw anyone's address or phone number posted, or photos posted maliciously.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Tbh Dub it's getting to the point where I really don't care what anyone does.  Do whatever makes you happiest.  It's not like I can give you any guarantees anyway.



what would make me happiest would be for decent posters like yourself to stop denying the disgusting stuff that has happened, admit you fucked up BADLY by not nipping this stuff in the bud and perhaps ridding yourself of the poison at the heart of TG


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> OK, I've kept well out of this till now, but if my phone number and details are being bandied about I'll go postal like you've never seen in even in your worst nightmares...I've had a shitty enough day discovering that both me and Blind Lemon are victims of ID theft and are being pursued for thousands of pounds worth of stuff because of fraud from our previous address. Over the last week my whole family have been plagued with nasty prank calls and I WILL involve the police.



I am a junta member of thetollinggang.  The status of junta members is publically visible.  No one has planned any stalking, identity theft or similar in any of TTG's private forums.  There's been gossip, and there's been bitching.  From now on hopefully any such talk will happen in the public forums, so anyone can see what's being said about them.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

I don't know, I've kept well out of this, haven't read their stuff, but we've recently had nasty calls.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> I am a junta member of thetollinggang.  The status of junta members is publically visible.  No one has planned any stalking, identity theft or similar in any of TTG's private forums.  There's been gossip, and there's been bitching.  From now on hopefully any such talk will happen in the public forums, so anyone can see what's being said about them.


What about PMs?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Anyway, what's that outside GG's gaff?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

editor - seeing as butch is actually one of the more reasonable posters on TG, i think it's more useful to have him here to at least try and defend / explain / justify what's gone on than to just ban him


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Shall I post up the 40-odd members of 'The Files' - you know the secret forum on TTG explicitly set up to store files, personal information and material useful for trolling urban75?
> 
> That way we can know _exactly_ who was aware of what was going on and there'll be no confusion as to who was involved.
> 
> What do you reckon? Might be a start, no?



Post away, it will boost urbans viewing figures and the tolling gangs.Might even make the news, anyone know any journalists?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> What about PMs?


We can't see what people put it pms.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> I am a junta member of thetollinggang.  The status of junta members is publically visible.  No one has planned any stalking, identity theft or similar in any of TTG's private forums.  There's been gossip, and there's been bitching.  From now on hopefully any such talk will happen in the public forums, so anyone can see what's being said about them.




apart from the untrue bits at the beginning, how the hell are we to believe you?

these secret forums have been constantly denied until now. why should we expect it to be any different in future?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think the way you've gone about this has been pretty shit actually.


Nowhere near as disappointed I am with you, I'm afraid.

You knew this shit was going on. For a long time.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

I really really do not want to get pulled into this but all this talk of personal details being bandied about has got me involved as getting dozens of prank calls recently make me highly suspicious, especially after reading some of the stuff on this thread.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Post away, it will boost urbans viewing figures and the tolling gangs.Might even make the news, anyone know any journalists?




not quite sure why you're being so gung ho, since so far you come out of this worse than anybody, you worm.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> Tbh Dub it's getting to the point where I really don't care what anyone does.  Do whatever makes you happiest.  It's not like I can give you any guarantees anyway.



Exactly.

I'm waiting to see if anyone round here takes any notice of me. If it carries on then, what can I say, I give up.

I can do without sitting here trying to stop you all tearing each other to pieces, tearing other people to pieces with your malicious leaks (verbally as well as here just in case anybody's confused), either deliberately trying to cause other people hurt or not caring if they are. Collateral damage, just so long as you can play your games.

I haven't much hope.

I was shaking with anger last night, angry to the point of tears, too angry to sleep properly.

Just drop it or I'm walking away and I shall persue my friendships with the decent, good people on this site well away from the gossip and backstabbing.

Please


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> editor - seeing as butch is actually one of the more reasonable posters on TG, i think it's more useful to have him here to at least try and defend / explain / justify what's gone on than to just ban him


Just as soon as he apologises and withdraws his accusation.

I'm not having people accusing me of things I haven't done.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> apart from the untrue bits at the beginning, how the hell are we to believe you?
> 
> these secret forums have been constantly denied until now. why should we expect it to be any different in future?



What untrue bits?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> not quite sure why you're being so gung ho, since so far you come out of this worse than anybody, you worm.




I'm assuming Chuck is trying to get a ban -go out in a blaze of glory and win kudos back at the ranch ...


how about that for mixed metaphors


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG - what can we do, in reality?

if we let it all go now, it's TOTALLY one sided. nobody on urban has pulled the shit that it turns out has been pulled on TG, and yet we're supposed to leave it?

do you think it's fair?


let me give you a for instance. i make no secret of my deep, deep dislike of intostella. i've known her in real life for years, and i know a lot about her. i have NEVER posted anything about what i know on urban - it's not a fair or decent way to operate.

so why should i tolerate other people doing it about me and my friends?



edited to add: this is not to be construed as some sort of implication that i have any 'dirt' on intostella, it's merely an example.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You have just one post to back this up or you're banned.
> 
> Again:
> I have not hacked the TTG website.
> ...



Is a fence not part of the chain of crime that begins with a theft?


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Is a fence not part of the chain of crime that begins with a theft?




ridiculous comparison. and that still implies hacking took place, whereas i suspect it didn't.


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> No one knows where Wolfie/Shirl live. And no one is interested in finding out, either.


I know where they live.  And to reassure Shirl in particular, I've never told anyone else, and nor shall I.  (If I'd been able to take up their kind offer of a freecycled range cooker, then I'd have had to tell the delivery people, obviously.  And that's why I had their address.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> ridiculous comparison. and that still implies hacking took place, whereas i suspect it didn't.


 Yet i know that it did and am in a far better postion to make that judgement than you. So an apt comparison from where i'm sitting.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> JTG - what can we do, in reality?
> 
> if we let it all go now, it's TOTALLY one sided. nobody on urban has pulled the shit that it turns out has been pulled on TG, and yet we're supposed to leave it?
> 
> do you think it's fair?



Because it avoids people getting more hurt than they are already. Because it would make you better than them.

It's not a question of fair, other people acting in a twattish way does not mean you HAVE to be a bigger cunt.

I didn't think I'd be listened to though. Too many people wanting to act the cock to take any notice.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> I know where they live.  And to reassure Shirl in particular, I've never told anyone else, and nor shall I.  (If I'd been able to take up their kind offer of a freecycled range cooker, then I'd have had to tell the delivery people, obviously.  And that's why I had their address.)





judging by what i've heard, i'm astonished you of all people would show up here.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> I was shaking with anger last night, angry to the point of tears, too angry to sleep properly.
> 
> Just drop it or I'm walking away and I shall persue my friendships with the decent, good people on this site well away from the gossip and backstabbing.


You want hurt? How do you think it feels when you set up a free website and find that a little clique - who have benefited immensely from the community -  have been actively trying to steal your "best posters" with a secret campaign of PMs, and then start to post up to gloat about it?

How do you think it feels when people who you thought were decent folks are posting up foul lies and personal attacks on you in a secret forum full of your  fellow posters and sitting back while others plot to fuck up the boards with a campaign of planned trolls?

I've seen enough to know who remains on my friends list and those who I want banned from here forever -I'll be fucked if I can see any reason why some people should be granted the privilege of sharing this site any more.

I don't hold you responsible and hope we can remain mates when the dust settles.

But some have been really fucking disappointing and they can go fuck themselves if they think they can keep on logging on to a website run for free by the hard work of the mods and I.

We don't need any trollers or troublemakers.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Because it avoids people getting more hurt than they are already. Because it would make you better than them.
> 
> It's not a question of fair, other people acting in a twattish way does not mean you HAVE to be a bigger cunt.
> 
> I didn't think I'd be listened to though. Too many people wanting to act the cock to take any notice.



Aye. I have much more respect for humble 'losers' than aggressive 'winners'
This is all so sad


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Because it avoids people getting more hurt than they are already. Because it would make you better than them.
> 
> It's not a question of fair, other people acting in a twattish way does not mean you HAVE to be a bigger cunt.
> 
> I didn't think I'd be listened to though. Too many people wanting to act the cock to take any notice.




do you think i'm wanting to act the cock, JTG, or am i reacting to some appalling behaviour visited on myself and my friends.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Is a fence not part of the chain of crime that begins with a theft?


Either apologise for your _direct accusation_ that I was involved with 'hacking' TTG or be banned.

I don't give a fuck anymore.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> judging by what i've heard, i'm astonished you of all people would show up here.



More innuendo.  Is that really the best way you know, to sort out a situation caused by hints and rumours?  You've already been told that FH has nothing to be ashamed of.

Editor:  are you also saying that you have not made use of any info, gained through hacking?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Either apologise for your _direct accusation_ that I was involved with 'hacking' TTG or be banned.
> 
> I don't give a fuck anymore.


Nor do i. You're in this up to your eyeballs.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Nor do i.




why the quick edit, butch? do you no longer think the editor isn't in so deep into this shit his eyes have turned brown?



oh, and then you changed your mind again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> why the quick edit, butch? do you no longer think the editor isn't in so deep into this shit his eyes have turned brown?
> 
> 
> 
> oh, and then you changed your mind again.


 Yes i do. Bye, was a good five years.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Editor:  are you also saying that you have not made use of any info, gained through hacking?


I have made my position on butcher's defamatory lies crystal clear already.

He accused me of being "involved in the hacking" and being "in it up to your eyeballs."

Whether I "made use" of material sent to me by a third party is utterly irrelevant to that charge.  I was not involved in any aspect of the 'hacking', if indeed the site was hacked. 

Could we have some proof of that please, btw?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Nor do i. You're in this up to your eyeballs.


Thanks and bye.

Lying cunt.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

If someone's changed their posting in order to make it less inflammatory, it's not really cricket to post up what they originally said, is it?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

I've made this point elsewhere on these boards but I think I may be worth making again here - be a bit careful about how you use the word "hacking" - hacking is the breaking into protected web space by exploiting weakness in software - it is difficult to do and relatively unusual.
The most common cause of breeches of security is people forgetting to log out of bulletin boards or whatever, passwords being written down - that sort of thing.
That is not hacking.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If someone's changed their posting in order to make it less inflammatory, it's not really cricket to post up what they originally said, is it?




in this context*, i actually think it is. and anyway, they reinstated their original comment to some degree anyway


* one in which deletion, denial, editing and secrecy is the cause of all this nonsense anyway


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Whether I "made use" of material sent to me by a third party is utterly irrelevant to that charge.  I was not involved in any aspect of the 'hacking', if indeed the site was hacked.



So you are not able or willing to deny that your information was obtained by hacking?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You want hurt? How do you think it feels when you set up a free website and find that a little clique - who have benefited immensely from the community -  have been actively trying to steal your "best posters" with a secret campaign of PMs, and then start to post up to gloat about it?



Ach, they haven't got the "best posters," nor will they.  Butchers and Ernesto are the only decent writers they've got.  A website set up specifically for people who have been expelled from a different website is a losing proposition in the first place if you ask me.  I don't know what's been going on in any private forum, but I don't think you need to worry about any competition on the public boards.  Actually, you know what your best tactic would be?  I mean a truly *Napoleonic* master-stroke?  Privately make peace with Ernesto, invite him back to U75, and leave the rest of TG to see how they get on without him.  He'd be well up for such a stab-in-the-back, he's *Welsh* remember...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jan 31, 2006)

Fuck all this - maybe I need a break from Urban for a while.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> So you are not able or willing to deny that your information was obtained by hacking?


I've no idea how it was obtained, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that I was not involved in *any aspect *of hacking the TG website, if that's how the information was obtained.

Why is that so fucking hard to understand?


----------



## Radar (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> The most common cause of breeches of security is people forgetting to log out of bulletin boards or whatever, passwords being written down - that sort of thing.
> That is not hacking.


As a point of fact only, it may fall foul of the Computer Misuse act 1990, though


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

fuck off dwyer, you're not helping.



to be honest, i'm going to TRY and walk away from this. I'm sorry to see posters like Butch go, and i'm sorry that JTG is so upset.

but to expect the editor etc, and in fact all those who've been victim to the disgusting behaviour on TG to automatically let it go in the name of accord is unfair and naive.

some people i thought highly of have revealed themselves to be the worst kind of cunts.

very depressing all round


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You want hurt? How do you think it feels when you set up a free website and find that a little clique - who have benefited immensely from the community -  have been actively trying to steal your "best posters" with a secret campaign of PMs, and then start to post up to gloat about it?
> 
> How do you think it feels when people who you thought were decent folks are posting up foul lies and personal attacks on you in a secret forum full of your  fellow posters and sitting back while others plot to fuck up the boards with a campaign of planned trolls?
> 
> ...



Which is exactly why I think dropping it all is the best way. Somebody has to break the cycle, why not be big enough to be that person? Surely you can see that if you don't draw attention to any such attacks then their power is infinitely reduced?

If you want to ban, ban away if you must. It's your prerogative.

But I can't and won't remain part of anything where people construct half truths, tell them to a friend who has sod all to do with this and endanger that relationship.

Someone has done very, very wrong and until I know who that person is, I'm sorry but my list of people I trust on this site is reduced to single figures.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I've made this point elsewhere on these boards but I think I may be worth making again here - be a bit careful about how you use the word "hacking" - hacking is the breaking into protected web space by exploiting weakness in software - it is difficult to do and relatively unusual.
> The most common cause of breeches of security is people forgetting to log out of bulletin boards or whatever, passwords being written down - that sort of thing.
> That is not hacking.


Is it legal to use somebody else's access password without persmission? (This, by the way, is a context-free enquiry!)


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I've no idea how it was obtained, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that I was not involved in *any aspect *of hacking the TG website, if that's how the information was obtained.
> 
> Why is that so fucking hard to understand?



Thank you for answering my question clearly and without (too much) extraneous abuse.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> fuck off dwyer, you're not helping.



You're not exactly at your most constructive today either, you know.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> but to expect the editor etc, and in fact all those who've been victim to the disgusting behaviour on TG to automatically let it go in the name of accord is unfair and naive.



You've still not pointed out which of my earlier statement was not true.

Right now I feel that you are flinging half truths, rumours and unfounded assertions around.  Which isn't helping matters, IMO.  So clarifying where you think _I_ am holding back/lying would be helpful to me.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Thank you for answering my question clearly and without (too much) extraneous abuse.


Well, I have repeated it about five times in the last ten minutes so I'm glad the repetition has finally led to greater clarity.


----------



## oisleep (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> have been actively trying to steal *your* "best posters" with a secret campaign of PMs, and then start to post up to gloat about it?



i didn't realise posters on here belonged to you or urban 75 for that matter


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Is it legal to use somebody else's access password without persmission? (This, by the way, is a context-free enquiry!)



I'm not sure it's ever been tested - I would guess it would depend to a large extent on what you did with the info ... if it was used for personal monetary gain for example


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> But I can't and won't remain part of anything where people construct half truths, tell them to a friend who has sod all to do with this and endanger that relationship.


I'm hoping to have this over with tonight and trust that those no longer invited to post on the site will be able to get over it and enjoy their new forums without the need to encourage or take part in any further personal attacks or trolling expeditions here.

Thing is, as I see it, all this is down to about four or five posters on TG. Sadly some of them seem to have free reign to do whatever they like,whatever the likely damage to the community.

And I suspect one of them is laughing his head off right now.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's ever been tested - I would guess it would depend to a large extent on what you did with the info ... if it was used for personal monetary gain for example


I'm not sure whether that's true. I would suspect that using someone else's password might constitute unauthorised access of some kind, but that's pretty much a guess. I'm staying with a lecturer in Information Studies weekend after next, perhaps I'll ask.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> i didn't realise posters on here belonged to you or urban 75 for that matter


I think even a small child would have got my meaning in context. But sadly not you.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm hoping to have this over with tonight and trust that those no longer invited to post on the site will be able to get over it and enjoy their new forums without the need to encourage or take part in any further personal attacks or trolling expeditions here.
> 
> Thing is, as I see it, all this is down to about four or five posters on TG. Sadly some of them seem to have free reign to do whatever they like,whatever the likely damage to the community.
> 
> And I suspect one of them is laughing his head off right now.



So why give him more reason to do so?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 31, 2006)

What is it that the injured parties want out of this?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> So why give him more reason to do so?


Aye again. Every time this thread gets posted on, Ern laughs harder.

Can we get some neutral Norwegians in to arbitrate?


----------



## oisleep (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I think even a small child would have got my meaning in context. But sadly not you.



anyway, can you close my account please, i've had enough of this shit

good luck to the decent people left here, it was a good couple of years at the start, but people's ego's here got too big for the site to retain any of it's positive aspects. I have no wish in engaging in any pathetic war of words between a couple of message boards on the internet, there's far far more important things to be doing in life, especially an adult's life

thanks for the good times though those were and still are appreciated

all the best

ross


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

i'm not doing very well staying off this, but i believe this is a post worth responding to.




			
				DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> What is it that the injured parties want out of this?




for my part, i want 

an admission on the part of many of the TG posters that what has happened is unacceptable. 
I want a lot of them to stop denying that it's happened (the only admissions have appeared after the evidence has been posted when it's kind of academic). 
i want an apology from a lot of the people who've been involved in abusing (in private) myself, my partner, my friends. 
i want them to get rid of the two or three or four vile little cunts that are behind all this shit. 
i want them to stop defending the indefensible.


that's quite a lot, and i doubt i'll get any of it (save from what i've received - and appreciated - in PM).


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 31, 2006)

Thanks Dub, anyone here from TTG care to respond? Are those requests unreasonable?


----------



## Radar (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's ever been tested - I would guess it would depend to a large extent on what you did with the info ... if it was used for personal monetary gain for example


Not really.  Remember Daniel Cuthbert from Whitechapel ?? the tsunami 'hacker' from last year ?

He was found guilty under the CMA and fined for trying out a traversal and shell exploit, even though he made no attempt to extract or modify data. They didn't even work, but he was still convicted.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> What is it that the injured parties want out of this?



I'd like an apology from whoever decided to make this personal with me.

That is, whoever it is that has been supplying the mods and friends here with titbits and being creative with what gets bandied around verbally.


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Radar said:
			
		

> Not really.  Remember Daniel Cuthbert from Whitechapel ?? the tsunami 'hacker' from last year ?
> 
> He was found guilty under the CMA and fined for trying out a traversal and shell exploit, even though he made no attempt to extract or modify data. They didn't even work, but he was still convicted.



but what he did - "he carried out two tests to check its security. This action set off an Intruder Detection System in a BT server room and the telco contacted the police" - was quite different from using a found password ...

..anyway I'm no expert in these things, just my thoughts really


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i want them to get rid of the two or three or four vile little cunts that are behind all this shit.



But they *can't,* can they?  If I understand correctly, those to whom you refer in these terms are the very people who run the site, right?  I truly believe that, if left alone, the site will peter out of its own accord.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> for my part, i want
> 
> an admission on the part of many of the TG posters that what has happened is unacceptable.
> I want a lot of them to stop denying that it's happened (the only admissions have appeared after the evidence has been posted when it's kind of academic).
> ...



[I'm not talking for nayone on TTG, obviously.]  I'm assuming that what Dub is talking about, when he says 'what happened' is the posting up of a picture of (I think) his girlfriends' parents house.

Now if I'm wrong about that , ignore the following.  But, as far as I'm concerned, that not a good thing to have happened.  The picture was put up and joked about.  The there was a discussion about whether this was acceptable and it was taken down, even though it was already posted in the public domain.

So the element that is most basic to the nature of 'TTG' is that we had a process, and that process stopped the bitching, and I'm pleased to defend that,

Inshallah, such bitching won't happen too often, but that is the gossippy nature of the internet.  If it does happen, it'll happen in the publick forums, (if I have anything to do with the decision) so no more rumours will be able to fester.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But they *can't,* can they?  If I understand correctly, those to whom you refer in these terms are the very people who run the site, right?  I truly believe that, if left alone, the site will peter out of its own accord.


Also a very good point, however when you are the agrieved party I think the perspective is a little different.
Still why not injuried persons say what it is they want from all this, then those from TTG can say if that's acceptable to them or not. If it's acceptable, fine we can go back to bussiness as usual, if not then the parties involved won't be pals will they?


End of

(abridged)


----------



## Radar (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> but what he did - "he carried out two tests to check its security. This action set off an Intruder Detection System in a BT server room and the telco contacted the police" - was quite different from using a found password ...
> 
> ..anyway I'm no expert in these things, just my thoughts really



Different yes, but he was still done under section 1 which is the lowest level of offence and incudes "using another person's identifier (ID) and password without proper authority in order to use data or a program, or to alter, delete, copy or move a program or data, or simply to output a program or data (for example, to a screen or printer)"

Just to be clear, I'm no legal bod either. 

Anyhow, I'm getting the feeling there's an axe being ground close by so I'll stay quiet.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> [I'm not talking for nayone on TTG, obviously.]  I'm assuming that what Dub is talking about, when he says 'what happened' is the posting up of a picture of (I think) his girlfriends' parents house.
> 
> Now if I'm wrong about that , ignore the following.  But, as far as I'm concerned, that not a good thing to have happened.  The picture was put up and joked about.  The there was a discussion about whether this was acceptable and it was taken down, even though it was already posted in the public domain.
> 
> ...



Nice


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> Also a very good point, however when you are the agrieved party I think the perspective is a little different.



Absolutely.  I'd be hopping mad if it was me.  But that's exactly why the aggreived party is not in a position to judge the best course of action.  In my view there is less than zero chance of these demands being met, and the best policy is just to let it lie.  Only about 12 people read the other site anyway.


----------



## longdog (Jan 31, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> I have no wish in engaging in any pathetic war of words between a couple of message boards on the internet, there's far far more important things to be doing in life, especially an adult's life



You can give it but you can't take it.


> oisleep
> Mainline Baby Squad
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DJ Bigga (Jan 31, 2006)

Some people think the internet is a bad thing....


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

longdog said:
			
		

> You can give it but you can't take it.



What _exactly _ do you think you've just posted up there?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

oisleep said:
			
		

> thanks for the good times though those were and still are appreciated


Shame to see you go. Truly.  

Good luck with the new boards but I would ask you to please, please do whatever you can to stop the trolling continuing from certain individuals at the TG.

In return, the mods here will be happy to stamp down on anyone trying to stir up shit between the two boards here. That way both boards can go their way and concentrate on making their communities be pleasant places to engage with.

If you want my opinion (and I'm sure you don't, but here goes), I think that most of the posters on TTG are decent folks, but this kind of head-on collision was always inevitable with certain people onboard.

Having admins and mods actively trolling a bigger board is always going to end in trouble and it's a shame that it was allowed to go this far.

I remain shocked and deeply disappointed by some of the stuff I've seen and heard, and don't see any winners out of this

But I do wish you good luck for the future - and thank you for your support in the past. If you ever want to return in the future, drop me a line.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

As annoying as it may seem, I'd leave it now folks.

Some people have made right cunts out of themselves, snidely posting in secret forums. They've been caught out, which makes all the high falluting principles and soothing assurances seem all the more grating now. My respect for most of the people involved  - albeit tacitly in some cases -has diminshed greatly, evaporated if I'm honest. 

But that's it. It's another storm in a teacup in the long term. The twats have gone far enough and exposed themselves as duplicitous wankers. Leave them to stew by themselves and move on.

Shitbags all round. It's not pleasant to have your worst suspicions of people confirmed like that.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> But they *can't,* can they?  If I understand correctly, those to whom you refer in these terms are the very people who run the site, right?  I truly believe that, if left alone, the site will peter out of its own accord.



You don't understand correctly.

The site is run by more than "four or five" people and some of those "four or five" people aren't part of the running of the site.


----------



## gurrier (Jan 31, 2006)

Longdog, that quote (and the thread that followed it afaics) shows oisleep arguing against 'undercover' trolling on boards.

Can we please all stop arguing now and turn on phildwyer?


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> You don't understand correctly.
> 
> The site is run by more than "four or five" people and some of those "four or five" people aren't part of the running of the site.



I think people going off at half-cock has been a large part of this situation.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> As annoying as it may seem, I'd leave it now folks.
> 
> Some people have made right cunts out of themselves, snidely posting in secret forums. They've been caught out, which makes all the high falluting principles and soothing assurances seem all the more grating now. My respect for most of the people involved  - albeit tacitly in some cases -has diminshed greatly, evaporated if I'm honest.
> 
> ...




And the people spreading untrue stories about my part in that to friends of mine? What do you think of them exactly?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Shame to see you go. Truly.
> 
> Good luck with the new boards but I would ask you to please, please do whatever you can to stop the trolling continuing from certain individuals at the TG.
> 
> ...




I'll second that, and what tarannau said.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Longdog, that quote (and the thread that followed it afaics) shows oisleep arguing against 'undercover' trolling on boards.
> 
> Can we please all stop arguing now and turn on phildwyer?



lol, and it is a thread about pissing about on a Respect Coalition board -- and a thread in our public general forum.  So what it 'proves' I'm not sure.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> And the people spreading untrue stories about my part in that to friends of mine? What do you think of them exactly?



To be honest, I don't know enough about the goings-on to have any real idea of what to think of them. All the secretive shite annoys the fuck out out me really; what's the point of all the backbiting and gossip?

Which is why I can't really understand why the secretive forums spread as easily as they did. Knowing some of the characters involved I'm largely struggling to see how a fair few decent people didn't see the dangers involved in creating a place where seemingly people could gossip (read bitch) about u75ers away from (more) public scrutiny. Couldn't anyone see that was inadvisable?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> lol, and it is a thread about pissing about on a Respect Coalition board -- and a thread in our public general forum.  So what it 'proves' I'm not sure.



I'm sorry to interrupt the bickering with something genuinely earth-shatteringly important but...
Is there a Respect Coalition board somewhere that nobody told us about?


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Couldn't anyone see that was inadvisable?



Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

For my part, given that some bitching was inevitable and I don't see the point in people being privy to unpleasantness about themselves, I thought providing a sandpit for all that stuff out of sight was a good idea. At the time.

I still can't see howthe editor's "moley" was doing anyone a favour by doing what they did. I was put in a very awkward position in my private life yesterday thanks to him/her and a description of events that was a)unnecessary and b)creative to say the least. I remain deeply suspicious of a great many people as a result and will continue to be so until I know who it was that decided to fuck me about like this.

I'm glad about the mods' statements above and I may even be able to sleep better tonight, not worried that a cowardly lying snitch isn't going to fuck up my friendships.

I'm as yet undecided about whether I will stay on these boards btw. But thank you editor, Wolfie and Dub for trying to bring it to a halt.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to interrupt the bickering with something genuinely earth-shatteringly important but...
> Is there a Respect Coalition board somewhere that nobody told us about?



lol, yeah, set up by non-SWP RUCers in Milton Keynes, apparently.  Which is why I've been arguing that it should be supported -- as the SWP leadership must hate it like poison


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> I'm as yet undecided about whether I will stay on these boards btw. But thank you editor, Wolfie and Dub for trying to bring it to a halt.




that's the bit i don't understand, jtg. apart from the situation you refer to - your guess is as good as mine - the rest of this didn't start here, wasn't something any of us went looking for. so why make THIS the site you stay away from?


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

Well, I've said my bit, so I'll drop it now.  I'm usually over at the tollinggang, and always happy to answer questions about board process, etc  Fell free to PM me here, but it might not get picked up very often

night all


----------



## wiskey (Jan 31, 2006)

well. 

i'm glad thats cleared the air a bit.


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 31, 2006)

Sorry to have missed the last few pages...about four pages ago mrs m was wondering about her 'personal details' being passed around.

They never, ever have. Just to make that clear. So whoever is pestering you isn't going to be linked with TTG.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Hindsight is a marvellous thing.
> 
> For my part, given that some bitching was inevitable and I don't see the point in people being privy to unpleasantness about themselves, I thought providing a sandpit for all that stuff out of sight was a good idea. At the time.




Maybe. But saying that some bitching is inevitable and then creating secret forums partly to facilitate it seems a contradictory cop out to me at the least; it's not sparing people's feelings for christsakes, it's giving people a platform to largely say what they want out of sight. 

Why give the fuckers a chance to showboat their smartarse comments and assorted nastiness in a large 'junta' of carefully selected names? So much for right of reply...

Why blame the mole. He's just the one who revealed the cowardly, snide bollocks to others. I can't see why anyone shouldn't stand by their words.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's the bit i don't understand, jtg. apart from the situation you refer to - your guess is as good as mine - the rest of this didn't start here, wasn't something any of us went looking for. so why make THIS the site you stay away from?



Because THIS is the site I know most people on and THIS is the site the worm who went distributing crap around would apparently be "loyal" to.

Look, I know who posted the original diss, their name was on it. I DON'T know who it was who created the problem I had yesterday by broadcasting it to whoever. That's my problem. It's a trust issue.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

wiskey said:
			
		

> well.
> 
> i'm glad thats cleared the air a bit.



Understatement of the year.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Because THIS is the site I know most people on and THIS is the site the worm who went distributing crap around would apparently be "loyal" to.
> 
> Look, I know who posted the original diss, their name was on it. I DON'T know who it was who created the problem I had yesterday by broadcasting it to whoever. That's my problem. It's a trust issue.



the answer is not going to appear on this thread. trust me. 

time to leave it.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Why blame the mole. He's just the one who revealed the cowardly, snide bollocks to others. I can't see why anyone shouldn't stand by their words.



Because it left me looking like a cunt when I hadn't done anything wrong. Because the way it was spread had the effect (intentionally or no) of making it look as though I'm the sort of person who does not stick up for my friends when they're attacked.

That upsets me and I'm in a deeply unforgiving mood towards this person.

Not towards anyone else though, I'm actually not feeling too bad for the first time in over 30 hours.


----------



## Callie (Jan 31, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Why blame the mole. He's just the one who revealed the cowardly, snide bollocks to others.




Moley didnt reveal things accurately though. Theres a difference between telling people the truth and telling people shit stirring bollocks.

(ill edit that out if wanted?)


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

wiskey said:
			
		

> the answer is not going to appear on this thread. trust me.
> 
> time to leave it.



I know.

I'm just trying to articulate why I'm so fucked off.

But I will leave it. Because I should follow my own advice to others and shut up and 'cos you asked me to


----------



## wiskey (Jan 31, 2006)

hang on i thought you were all going to go and do something more constructive! 

<edited in response to jtg's above ^^ >


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 31, 2006)

I'm going to be polite about this, and moderate, in the interests of keeping the peace, such as it is.

I'll be leaving these boards for good. I did my best to try and keep the peace, but it seems a confrontation, and a bitter one at that, was always going to happen. I felt I had that I had to pick a side, as much as I didn't want to, so I did.

I don't agree fully with what's gone on, on either board, but I feel that my position here has for various reasons become untenable. I don't propose to go into those reasons in the interests of not perpetuating what's been going on of late.

I'll still be around various other boards, and at various political events and such, so some of you may bump into me from time to time, but I'll no longer be part of U75.

Its been interesting, and at times its been fun as well, but not any longer I'm afraid. Please delete my account immediately.

So, its goodbye from me.

Night night all.


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> Because THIS is the site I know most people on and THIS is the site the worm who went distributing crap around would apparently be "loyal" to.
> 
> Look, I know who posted the original diss, their name was on it. I DON'T know who it was who created the problem I had yesterday by broadcasting it to whoever. That's my problem. It's a trust issue.




JTG - you don't get to have it both ways. you've asked people like the editor, wolfie and me to walk away from it after similar abuses of trust and betrayals of friendship. we're supposed to get over it, walk away from it, be the bigger men.

do you think what those cunts did at TG  didn't cause problems between my partner and I? don't you think wolfie is angry about his details being shared? you're not the only one to have been fucked over by this - though i entirely understand why your problem is more painful and immediate in some ways. but that's one issue, whereas the traffic going the other way is FAR fucking heavier.

so i ask again why you have a problem with this site and the posters on it when far greater and more extensive wrongs have been committed by TG posters.

just doesn't sound balanced, mate.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 31, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Sorry to have missed the last few pages...about four pages ago mrs m was wondering about her 'personal details' being passed around.
> 
> They never, ever have. Just to make that clear. So whoever is pestering you isn't going to be linked with TTG.


I've had assurances from people I like and trust...I'd kept out of it up to now, but my kids have been quite upset...when I saw that others details have been bandied about you can't blame me for being suspicious.


----------



## JTG (Jan 31, 2006)

I'm leaving it now. Dub, I'll email you tomorrow if I have time.

Night all


----------



## Dubversion (Jan 31, 2006)

ok, take care fella


----------



## Crispy (Jan 31, 2006)

*Tucks thread into bed with a cup of cocoa*


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2006)

Looks like the end of an era, sad to see anyone go, xcept Kyser* 












*only having a larf


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> not quite sure why you're being so gung ho, since so far you come out of this worse than anybody, you worm.



Come on chubby try and at least pretend to be concilliatory. Sorry to disappoint you but I have had emails and pms agreeing with me over the abusive pms from wolfie, your attitude problem and raisng some interesting stuff I wasn't aware of. 

I have an even view of this board and the vast majority of posters, but there is something about you and pk that really smells.

To keep the peace and to give the decent posters a break I am going to try and give you a wide berth on here in future.

Shalom.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Come on chubby try and at least pretend to be concilliatory.


"Chubby"?

Now _there's_ a way to start a post asking for conciliation!



Chill peeps.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> "Chubby"?
> 
> Now _there's_ a way to start a post asking for conciliation!
> 
> ...



Well it is difficult when he calls me a worm but you are right.Although he is a bigger man I should show that i am bigger.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

What's the casualty count so far? Is it in double figures yet?


----------



## Wolfie (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> ...
> To keep the peace and to give the decent posters a break I am going to try and give you a wide berth on here in future.
> 
> ...



I hope that you'll give me a wide berth too.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2006)

Just thought I'd add a bit of humour to this thread like.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I'm assuming Chuck is trying to get a ban -go out in a blaze of glory and win kudos back at the ranch ...
> 
> 
> how about that for mixed metaphors



Quite the opposite . I have always tried to play within the rules . I'll chat to you about it on the phone , if the number you gave is the right one. 

Oh! You forgot to print the PM where I wished you the seasons greetings you little rascal!!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I hope that you'll give me a wide berth too.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> What's the casualty count so far? Is it in double figures yet?


I think kea could well be next after this blatant piece of pathetic trolling:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4142878&postcount=84

Oh, hold on - Chuck's in there too! It was all his idea!


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> http://image.com.com/mp3/images/cover/200/drf300/f370/f37085yhodf.jpg


Good album, that.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> What's the casualty count so far? Is it in double figures yet?



Depends how you calculate it.  I reckon Butchers should count double, he's a sad loss.  In general though, I reckon this is all for the best in the long run.  In a way.  Well, that is only my view.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 31, 2006)

Mmm, but doesn't it remind you of an episode of _The Sweeney_? There's been a few people nicked but not the big guys. Cue the downbeat version of the theme tune.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Good album, that.



Yes, it's in my top three or five 'house 'albums.You know the ones that you always buy if you lose or scratch a copy or the format changes. That and Solid air  by john Martyn and the first Teardrop explodes album.

Anyway i'm logging off now.People to talk to , things to discuss . In private.


----------



## fat hamster (Jan 31, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I think kea could well be next after this blatant piece of pathetic trolling:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4142878&postcount=84
> 
> Oh, hold on - Chuck's in there too! It was all his idea!


You just can't leave it alone, can you?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Mmm, but doesn't it remind you of an episode of _The Sweeney_? There's been a few people nicked but not the big guys. Cue the downbeat version of the theme tune.



Reminds me more of World War One, actually.  The TG generals sitting back and quaffing champagne while their footsoldiers go over the top to be instantly mowed down by machine gun fire.  Maybe they'll mutiny?


----------



## laptop (Jan 31, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> In general though, I reckon this is all for the best in the long run.  In a way.



In the way that you hope your bizarre claims might go unchallenged, or that you might pick up some acolytes for your sad efforts to invent a religion?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 31, 2006)

not sure what's gone on in the past few hours, not really bothered. I will say butchersapron used my proper name here & my association with bristol poly. Don't know where he got the information from, private or public forum (suspect i won't find out now).

Call it a bit of shrapnel.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 31, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> In the way that you hope your bizarre claims might go unchallenged, or that you might pick up some acolytes for your sad efforts to invent a religion?



In the way that people who are unhappy with the way this site is run should just go off and do their own thing.  Which they now have, praise Jah.  And you *know* you'll be my first convert.  Play your cards right and I'll make you a bishop.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You just can't leave it alone, can you?


Perhaps you might explain why certain posters should be allowed to indulge in wind-up trolling threads purely for the amusement of their back-slapping chums hidden away on an invite-only forum?

The mods have enough work to do with arseholes pissing about.

Oh, and seeing as she's decided to put back in the TG URL in her user tag for the third time after being clearly warned, she can now enjoy a _more selective _choice of forums.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> You just can't leave it alone, can you?



so is it worth it? justifiable?
these excursions over here?


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> so is it worth it? justifiable?
> these excursions over here?


That one really pissed me off because posters were going out of their way to be helpful when it was purely for the benefit of sniggering twats on their secret forum.

It's pathetic.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 31, 2006)

seriously just ban them, and anyone with 'related' taglines (teehee) 
this has all fucked with my head and now it hurts    very dissapointed in a few people   

wake up bristle,kea,photo,belushi,fh please!


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Thanks and bye.
> 
> Lying cunt.



Lying hypocritical cunt, in your case.

There is no mole, never was.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> My tuppence worth, as someone not too involved:
> 
> While tolling gangers have been naive in assuming their 'secret' forum would stay secret, and have also allowed the modding in said forum to be a bit lax, thus allowing some of the bitching to go too far, I don't think I've actually seen evidence here of an orchestrated campaign against urban - just a few saddoes obsessed with urban who should have been reigned in and weren't.
> 
> ...


This makes the most sense of anything on the thread so far 

edit: I'm only up to page 31, so I'm not sure about the hacking stuff tbh.  Imo, I can't imagine anyone being that bothered, but then again you did choose about the least secure bb available.  I might just hack it myself to see what's going on.  

edit2: (uyp to page 33 now) sorry to see you go BA 

edit3: and oisleep and pilgrim   That chuck can fuck off though.

edit4: that blackberry thread was a work of pure fucking pointless cuntiness.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> There is no mole, never was.


That's certainly what I'd call someone feeding me (and others) information.

But if you're trying to accuse me of "hacking" your site, you'd best come up with some evidence and fast.

You could start with IP addresses. I have only one web connection, so it's easy to check.

So let's see the IP address of this "hacker" of yours please, along with the times of their activity. It should be easy to trace on your boards - just look through the admin access files.

So it's time to put your money where your mouth or you can apologise because I have _never _hacked your site. Not once. Not ever. Neither have I _ever_ logged in and accessed your secret forums.

It might suit you to try and blame me, but you're wrong. And I don't like liars.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Is not the suggestion that the TTG site has been hacked, rather than it has been hacked by anybody specific?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Is not the suggestion that the TTG site has been hacked, rather than it has been hacked by anybody specific?


If it's been "hacked" I certainly haven't got the skills.

Quite why they're discounting the more obvious sources is beyond me.

Maybe throwing around baseless, wild accusations makes it easy for them to avoid facing the far more likely fact that the leak was down to one of their own little gang?


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

fractionMan said:
			
		

> This makes the most sense of anything on the thread so far
> 
> edit: I'm only up to page 31, so I'm not sure about the hacking stuff tbh.  Imo, I can't imagine anyone being that bothered, but then again you did choose about the least secure bb available.  I might just hack it myself to see what's going on.



Im glad its calmed down, im also pages behind, took me nearly two hours to read thread.....

How sad is all this, very disturbing reading and even more sad is the constant justifucation of such goings on, by members that have really shocked me  

For what its worth ed, get rid of the main hench men, and anyone who continues to use provocative taglines, they are clearly not worth this dis harmony........whether they have been posted up three months ago or not, is far from acceptable, they are trying and succeeding in adding a very nasty stench on this board....


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> That's certainly what I'd call someone feeding me (and others) information.
> 
> But if you're trying to accuse me of "hacking" your site, you'd best come up with some evidence and fast.
> 
> ...



Not the way it works, sunshine - you're asserting there's a "mole". I don't believe it. Name them. A PM will do.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Not the way it works, sunshine - you're asserting there's a "mole". I don't believe it. Name them. A PM will do.


Why would he?  A bit of FUD never (well, nearly always) helps.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Not the way it works, sunshine - you're asserting there's a "mole". I don't believe it. Name them. A PM will do.



What so the editor can be known as a snitch?


----------



## killer b (Feb 1, 2006)

have they banned all lurkers from the tolling gang? that'll bring the member list down a bit...


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

Ban them all, ernesto will know his own.

_What, all the cool kids have posted in this thread_


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Not the way it works, sunshine - you're asserting there's a "mole". I don't believe it.


Hold on there: you're the one making the emphatic claims, so you'd best back 'em up pronto because I don't see why I should take such insults from you.

Here's your words:

_"Lying hypocritical cunt, in your case.There is no mole, never was."_

Proof now, please. If you're saying  that your site has been hacked, go through the admin access files in your admin panel and see what non-matching IP addresses come up.

And then you can fucking apologise.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> Ban them all, ernesto will know his own.
> 
> _What, all the cool kids have posted in this thread_



i don't normally say this but...  lol!

if this thread hadn't involved people i like and respect getting upset and sometiems falling out it would have been some of the best internetsoap opera viewing in years.


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

It's been hacked. There is no mole. Why do you presume to know better than I do whether it's been hacked?

Why would you want to protect the mole's identity?


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

all together now...  neeeeeeiggghhhbours, eveery one needs good neeeeeeiggghhhbours


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> It's been hacked. There is no mole. Why do you presume to know better than I do whether it's been hacked?
> 
> Why would you want to protect the mole's identity?


How do you know it's been hacked?  Professional interest and all that...


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

I can't be bothered reading the whole of this thread (which until a few mins ago I thought was about George Galloway's house), so I don't suppose I'll be any clearer what this is all about any time soon.

But I can say this: I was hoping to continue posting both here and at the Tolling Gang, so if we can stop assuming that this is a battle between two clear sides that'd be nice.  Cheers.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered reading the whole of this thread (which until a few mins ago I thought was about George Galloway's house), so I don't suppose I'll be any clearer what this is all about any time soon.
> 
> But I can say this: I was hoping to continue posting both here and at the Tolling Gang, so if we can stop assuming that this is a battle between two clear sides that'd be nice.  Cheers.


Well said.  

As BA said, this is a problem between a few posters here and a few posters there.  I certainly won't be holding any grudges (not that anyone would give a fuck if I did)


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> It's been hacked. There is no mole. Why do you presume to know better than I do whether it's been hacked?
> 
> Why would you want to protect the mole's identity?




why the fuck are you still here?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered reading the whole of this thread (which until a few mins ago I thought was about George Galloway's house)


Not since about six postings down the second page...


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Not since about six postings down the second page...


So I see.  Now.


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> why the fuck are you still here?


 
Did something yap?


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Ah.  That  explains a lot.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> It's been hacked. There is no mole.


Really? So what actual proof have you that the site was 'hacked' please?

Did they alter any accounts? Delete any files? Make new admin accounts?

I've already given you several pointers on how you can check and trace a hacker. So what was the results of your search of IP addresses?

Oh, and I've no idea how the information was gathered, but in the absence of any proof of 'hacking' I'd say you'd be better off looking to your own members rather than shouting abuse at me.

Talking of which, are you going to apologise now?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> But I can say this: I was hoping to continue posting both here and at the Tolling Gang, so if we can stop assuming that this is a battle between two clear sides that'd be nice.  Cheers.


Oh, I know that you're OK


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Ah.  That  explains a lot.


Naturally I assumed it was another abuse-Galloway thread at 200 postings/hour and left it alone until I found out the truth.....


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks Ed, and there are other fine people who post both places.


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Naturally I assumed it was another abuse-Galloway thread at 200 postings/hour and left it alone until I found out the truth.....


You know The Truth!

PM me it, and I'll see if we can sort all this...


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> Did something yap?


----------



## fat hamster (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Thanks Ed, and there are other fine people who post both places.


There are a lot fewer now than there were 24 hours ago.


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> There are a lot fewer now than there were 24 hours ago.


That's a real shame.    

On the plus side, it means that you and I will have more biscuits at the U75/TTG Crossover meetings.


----------



## fat hamster (Feb 1, 2006)

Have a jaffa cake!


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Jaffa _cakes_ aren't biscuits.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Jaffa _cakes_ aren't biscuits.


 Oh FFS, this will never die now!


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

*>>> ddraigs post 927 and the one it's responding to*

Not helpful eithers of yer ... 

Have been reading all this, and it's really depressing. I'm sorry that JTG has been treated badly, know nothing about the details.

I still want to continue respecting and liking lots of people on both forums as I have always done.

Apologies to all if anything strong I said (intended to be directed at no more than 2 or 3, at most 4, particular people though) were unhelpful in inflaming things further.

I'm sorry to see people being banned who have had loads worthwhile to contribute here in the past, but it's pointless now to fling blame in Urban's direction, of course Urban 75 isn't blame free at all, but the problem lies with TTG now as has been said. For : Allowing a potentially excellent new site to allow too much in the way of  trolling, troublemaking, stirring and information gathering and for the main person behind all that to be given carte blanche, on an admin's card (and with a founder's stake??), to piss about to the extent revealed so depressingly through this painful thread. All that was never going to be anything but a huge error ...  

Admittedly hindsight and this thread helps me say this, but it's about time people stopped searching around for 'hacking' excuses and either prove TTG was hacked, or stop making excuses for the existence of all that private and maliciously stored information.


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Edited for not reading.

But CAKES aren't biscuits.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Edited for not reading.
> 
> But CAKES aren't biscuits.



they're fucking not, and that's far more important than all teh rest of this waffle.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> they're fucking not, and that's far more important than all teh rest of this waffle.


 ^ truth.


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Really? So what actual proof have you that the site was 'hacked' please?
> 
> Did they alter any accounts? Delete any files? Make new admin accounts?
> 
> I've already given you several pointers on how you can check and trace a hacker. So what was the results of your search of IP addresses?



I do have proof. Give me one good reason why I should share it with you? How about I give you my proof and you name me your mole? How does that sound?



> Oh, and I've no idea how the information was gathered, but in the absence of any proof of 'hacking' I'd say you'd be better off looking to your own members rather than shouting abuse at me.
> 
> Talking of which, are you going to apologise now?



Apologise for what? Perhaps you'd like to point out exactly where I accused you of the hack?

I called you a hypocrite - I stand by that. Earlier in the thread you termed pickman's relating a "private conversation" despicable. Called him "snitch boy".
Yet with not so much as a blush you post up stuff from your "mole".....You ask people not to shit-stir and then go out of your way to do precisely that with kea - over a post more than a month old.

Liar? Yeah - you've been _extremely_ selective in what you've chosen to post from TTG. What you _have_ posted has been calculated to deceive....a lie, in my book.

But I'm away to bed now. More, as they say, anon.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

WoW - no one was bothered a few pages back, i only brought it out again in response to the doggy pic. and their logo is/was shit anyway. my head hurts too much to care atm. sorry. looks like it might (hopefully) be coming to an end now anyway


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> WoW - no one was bothered a few pages back, i only brought it out again in response to the doggy pic. and their logo is/was shit anyway. my head hurts too much to care atm. sorry. looks like it might (hopefully) be coming to an end now anyway



You spoke to soon, check post above you


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> they're fucking not, and that's far more important than all teh rest of this waffle.


There is, of course, an argument for classing waffles as cakes, too.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> There is, of course, an argument for classing waffles as cakes, too.


 With or without hot caramelised sugar?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Feb 1, 2006)

Why are some TTG members being so fucking sanctimonious about the hacking issue when they openly advocate hacking other sites ? 
(for fun !)


----------



## Dhimmi (Feb 1, 2006)

Sesquipedalian said:
			
		

> Why are some TTG members being so fucking sanctimonious about the hacking issue when they openly advocate hacking other sites ?
> (for fun !)



Because they're a bunch of city wankers!


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

haylz said:
			
		

> You spoke to soon, check post above you



  arrararaaraaaaaaaararararararr 'go crazy?' 'don't mind if i do' raraajhbralrbiwerbafuabfiudbfasdfub

nos da


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> arrararaaraaaaaaaararararararr 'go crazy?' 'don't mind if i do' raraajhbralrbiwerbafuabfiudbfasdfub
> 
> nos da



nos da cariad


----------



## laptop (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> There is, of course, an argument for classing waffles as cakes, too.



And it seems that Her Majesty's Excise (who under the current dispensation are the final arbiters of what has cakeitude) agree with you, unless they're chocolate-covered.

A decision that must have caused the purveyors of Jaffa Cakes some disquiet...


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

I have no wish to get dragged into mudslinging, so can we be more specific, please, when making accusations.  eg "they openly advocate hacking other sites".  I post on TTG, but I don't remember ever signing up to this declaration.  Nor, it should be said, have I see anyone else over there "openly advocating hacking other sites". 

A bit more specificness might take some of the heat out of this.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 1, 2006)

Pilgrim said:
			
		

> I'm going to be polite about this, and moderate, in the interests of keeping the peace, such as it is.
> 
> I'll be leaving these boards for good. I did my best to try and keep the peace, but it seems a confrontation, and a bitter one at that, was always going to happen. I felt I had that I had to pick a side, as much as I didn't want to, so I did.
> 
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm sorry to see Pilgrim leave, because he's a sound and positive poster in most threads I've seen where he's been, but I think he's making the wrong decision really


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

This thread has really got to me and im a bit of a non entity on this board.....

Im glad now that i wasnt granted access on TTG, well i was but received no confirmation email, rendering it impossible to view, defo for best, as what a head fuck this all is.....
My sympathy's go to all those affected personally by the sinister undertones of a handful over there.....


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Incidentally, I've just seen pk's cut and paste of the thread on TTG that seems to be one of the bones of contention here.  If anyone was to read it properly, they'd see that while there was an unacceptable incident, it was dealt with quickly.  As a similar incident would be were it to happen here.  

There is absolutely no merit in blaming a whole board and all its posters for everything that goes on.  Any more than posters here would accept collective responsibility for everything that happens here.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no merit in blaming a whole board and all its posters for everything that goes on.  Any more than posters here would accept collective responsibility for everything that happens here.




Who's doing that though, casting the net too wide? Many of my posts in this thread, and plenty of those of others, have been positive about the majority of TTG people. It's only a very small number there that seem to be involved at all, and even fewer responsible, for all this, That's my take on it anyway.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> You ask people not to shit-stir and then go out of your way to do precisely that with kea - over a post more than a month old.


You've got that the wrong way around, don't you think?


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> I have no wish to get dragged into mudslinging, so can we be more specific, please, when making accusations.  eg "they openly advocate hacking other sites".  I post on TTG, but I don't remember ever signing up to this declaration.  Nor, it should be said, have I see anyone else over there "openly advocating hacking other sites".
> 
> A bit more specificness might take some of the heat out of this.



There are comments on the open forums about hacking certain sites for fun.
(Even i,as a novice to bulletin boards,have been able to read that.)
It's not an accusation it's a fact.

I never suggested that you have signed up to a "declaration to hack."

Have a good read of the open forums.

I'm going to watch the State Of The Union Address.

(ps- passions are running high,this is none of my business and have mistakenly got involved before.)

But the sanctimonious drivel from some TTG members about hacking,
that takes the biscuit.
(Jaffa cake anyone ?)


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Who's doing that though, casting the net too wide?


I'm not blaming you, mate.  

There is just a tone I'm picking up on this thread.  And I thought I'd try to get people to think a little more rationally.  Try, anyway.


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Sesquipedalian said:
			
		

> Have a good read of the open forums.


I do.  Regularly.


----------



## laptop (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> There is just a tone I'm picking up on this thread.



So PK got the war he wanted


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> So PK got the war he wanted


As usual.


----------



## laptop (Feb 1, 2006)

Needs shut in a small room with that Guevara character. Without parole.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> So PK got the war he wanted



I dont read it that way....

If you believe that good comes from bad, then his attempt at shit stirring has outed a nasty vindictive minority, one that was in need of uncovering.................... unfortunatly


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

laptop said:
			
		

> So PK got the war he wanted


I don't think he started it though, teach!


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

Oh, for Christ's sake, there is blame on both sides here.  Can we not just accept that and move on?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

he may not have started it, but he wanted a war.  he got one, there was some argy bargy and a urban has a few fewer posters now.  nevermind, they'd not contributed anything around here in a while anyway.  they'll be happier where they are, no worries.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> he may not have started it, but he wanted a war.  he got one, there was some argy bargy and a urban has a few fewer posters now.  nevermind, they'd not contributed anything around here in a while anyway.  they'll be happier where they are, no worries.



Aye, that's precisely it.  And now, to bed..


----------



## where to (Feb 1, 2006)

pk said:
			
		

> Still waiting...
> 
> Looks like they've convieniently gone for lunch - save by the bell, indeed.
> 
> ...


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> There are no secret DJ forums. There are no secret party forums.


But there are - I assume - private Mod forum/s?  Which would be the appropriate comparison.

I don't have access to the Mod forums here, or to the Junta forums on TTG.  But I would be concerned if information from the private U75 Mod forums was revealed on TTG site, and I am concerned that information from the private Junta forum was apparently revealed on U75.

Now, it seems to me that a person posting private U75 information on TTG would have questions to answer.  And I think it would only be reasonable for that person's behaviour to be shared with the U75 Mods.  That's what I'd call for, anyway.

However, the reverse situation apparently applies here.  The allegation is that someone with access to private Tolling Gang information made it public on U75.  It is reasonable, therefore, to ask that the identity of that person be passed on to TTG Junta.  If it is an insider, they will be dealt with appropriately.  If the information was obtained by any other means, then we'll see.

And then hopefully this matter will rest.


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> You've got that the wrong way around, don't you think?



errrrr, is that it?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

I had some Jaffa cakes in Marianske Lazne last week. If I'd known the subject was going to come up I'd have kept the packet so I could tell you what the Czechs call them.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> But there are - I assume - private Mod forum/s?  Which would be the appropriate comparison.
> 
> I don't have access to the Mod forums here, or to the Junta forums on TTG.  But I would be concerned if information from the private U75 Mod forums was revealed on TTG site, and I am concerned that information from the private Junta forum was apparently revealed on U75.
> 
> ...


I think the opinion might change if you found that the U75 mod forums contained plans to troll TG, chortling about trolling TG from those doing so while maintaining a friendly face here, posting of mods' phone numbers (ffs) and so on.

The fact is that while I've been okay with dealing with the TG board in the past and ignoring all the whinging about Urban - I'm hardly bothered about people whinging, that's a problem for other posters on the board where they whinge - after reading what I have, and I've read an awful lot more than has been posted here, I just cannot take it as a friendly board. People are quite openly posting about how they're trying to fuck with Urban, and sure, there are plenty who aren't, and even sometimes some who say "stop bloody going on about Urban" but it's not really worked has it? Even yesterday ern was back trolling.

I've spent some time saying "leave it out" when people start shit about TG here; I've expressed the opinion in public and private that while they might have some teething problems there were enough decent people there who maybe just wanted a change of debate style or content or just to run their own place, all perfectly reasonable things. They'd eventually sort things out. It doesn't seem to have worked.

I've been lied to about what goes on over there - "nobody uses them to talk about trolling Urban" etc, and to start with on this thread, when examples were mentioned, the original response was to deny they ever existed. I'm not going to sit here complaining about it, this is probably one of the last posts I'll make on the subject, but TG as a whole is now not a friendly board as far as I'm concerned. I won't be passing on any information or giving any details to the Junta there because it contains elements that are actively hostile to this board.

I've got no problem with anyone here just because they post there, and I'm sorry for anyone who did just want to start something new, but I am not going to deal with TG as a whole as being some sort of peer.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2006)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I've just seen pk's cut and paste of the thread on TTG that seems to be one of the bones of contention here.  If anyone was to read it properly, they'd see that while there was an unacceptable incident, it was dealt with quickly.  As a similar incident would be were it to happen here.
> 
> There is absolutely no merit in blaming a whole board and all its posters for everything that goes on.  Any more than posters here would accept collective responsibility for everything that happens here.



I don't think anyone is blaming the whole board.  My take on it is that you have one or two people over there you ought to get rid of as they're fucking you up.  Unfortunately, one is a founder member and mod and none of you have the balls to do anything about him.


----------



## Wolfie (Feb 1, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

>




I don't get the reference 

Why should you giving me a wide berth be seen as "pretzel logic"?

I loathe Steely Dan anyway -that Jeff "Skunk" Baxter widdly guitar is profoundly irritating ..


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I had some Jaffa cakes in Marianske Lazne last week. If I'd known the subject was going to come up I'd have kept the packet so I could tell you what the Czechs call them.


 Did you know there is a jaffa cakes hotline printed on the back of the packet that gets you through to a real person who will try to counsel you on your cake addiction?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Feb 1, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is blaming the whole board.  My take on it is that you have one or two people over there you ought to get rid of as they're fucking you up.  Unfortunately, one is a founder member and mod and none of you have the balls to do anything about him.


I've seen no evidence that Ern has been trolling Urban.

And mods on Urban have revealed details of private forums on another site.  Equally unacceptable imo.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> Did you know there is a jaffa cakes hotline printed on the back of the packet that gets you through to a real person who will try to counsel you on your cake addiction?


As it was my first hit in about ten years I'm not concerned as yet.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I've seen no evidence that Ern has been trolling Urban.
> 
> And mods on Urban have revealed details of private forums on another site.  Equally unacceptable imo.



None so blind eh?  Thats what stinks most about this - the constant denials and lies from people I thought better of.  You're a fucking disgrace.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm afraid the fact that this thread has not been binned makes a complete and utter mockery of the much vaunted FAQ's of this site.

editor, fridge, etc if you wished to present the distortions that you have to your audience you should have started a new thread to do so and been up front about it.


----------



## MysteryGuest (Feb 1, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I've seen no evidence that Ern has been trolling Urban.




What.  The.  Fuck?!    How could you say that?!


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> As it was my first hit in about ten years I'm not concerned as yet.


 The longest journey starts with the shortest step.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

I guess I better shove me oar in...  
info I have received has shown me that there IS a minority on TG who are up to some pretty shitty behaviour. It's a minority, and doesn't affect my good opinion of others, but I think those others really need to rethink about who they are associated with.
I wanted - and still want - TG to succeed. In fact I want as many  'progressive views' BBs to succeed, as it broadens the universe of the possible for not-for-profit BBs which give forae for the views of mad ranting leftie subversive Enemies Of The State like me.
I am also convinced that Editor and fridgie are telling the truth. There are now major question marks in my mind over SOME aspects of TG.
will I still post on TG? I don't know. I STILL believe there are some damn good threads over there, and THAT part of it is promising. but certain elements need reining in.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I'm afraid the fact that this thread has not been binned makes a complete and utter mockery of the much vaunted FAQ's of this site.





what? the way you binned the threads on TG which directly contradict your stated stance?

Cheg - you of all people. A hypocrite and a fucking coward.

fuck all y'all, seriously. 

I was happy to put all this shit down to the same 3 or 4 snakes in the grass over at TG, but the most depressing aspect is people like you and Thora and Kea and the like consistently lying or denying or obfuscating.

pathetic, utterly utterly pathetic.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2006)

Why is everyone so deperate to try and uncover the mole? They've provided a bit of a public service afaic - there were far too many unpleant things said and a fair few people willing to lie at all costs to continue a petty little troll n' insult game.

And the whole notion of this tg forum being 'private' is a bit of a nonsense if you ask me. There were nearly 40 'junta' members given access to this forum, created pretty much especially for folks to bitch about u75 and members it seems, out of an active membership of a hundred or two? It's like creating a special forum of nearly 3000 urban 75 members and claiming it to be a private space that no-one else should visit, for their own good of course.

Bollocks. People created this space for a reason, some of them most clearly snide (love Kea's two faced trolling bollocks btw), and got caught out. Let them deal with the consequences, not try and blame the whistleblower. 

And to think that some of the folk involved used to moan bitterly about the slightest mention of banned members on these boards, complaining about the lack of right to reply. And then they help set up this secret area to facilitate such bitching, the hypocritical two-faced wankers.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> I've seen no evidence that Ern has been trolling Urban.


I'm sorry - I have a lot of respect for you - but this is so far from the truth.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I'm sorry - I have a lot of respect for you - but this is so far from the truth.


 _He walks amoungst us still_

*looks around furtivley*


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

btw - 

if, as i suspect, there is a lot more of this stuff, and a lot more damaging (the editor has already referred to not posting the worst stuff because it could actually ruin friendships etc  ) surely the TG posters might consider being a bit circumspect about their approach to this.

to constantly deny there is an issue; to claim anything posted is months old and worthless - that sort of thing, is surely inviting the publication of the much more unpleasant stuff in the name of disclosure.

is that really what you'd like to see happen? think HARD about what might have been said.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> what? the way you binned the threads on TG which directly contradict your stated stance?
> 
> Cheg - you of all people. A hypocrite and a fucking coward.
> 
> ...



no ones coming out of this looking good - *including fridge and editor*....and the lies that have been told here....fuck it I don't have the energy or will to correct them all.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no ones coming out of this looking good - *including fridge and editor*....and the lies that have been told here....fuck it I don't have the energy or will to correct them all.




no.

you don't have the fucking integrity to admit that things at TG got out of hand, and you don't have the balls to stand up to ern.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> btw -
> 
> if, as i suspect, there is a lot more of this stuff, and a lot more damaging (the editor has already referred to not posting the worst stuff because it could actually ruin friendships etc  ) surely the TG posters might consider being a bit circumspect about their approach to this.
> 
> ...



*I've put up nothing - and I mean nothing* on any part of Tolling Gang that I wouldn't completely and utterly stand by - nor would anyone find any of it offensive. But all the attempts at smearing by association have taken root with some people so you can all judge as much as you like.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> *I've put up nothing - and I mean nothing* on any part of Tolling Gang that I wouldn't completely and utterly stand by - nor would anyone find any of it offensive. But all the attempts at smearing by association have taken root with some people so you can all judge as much as you like.




No Cheg, you know that's not what I'm doing - as i've said repeatedly on this thread, most of this stuff is the work of the same 4 or 5 people. But to constantly deny it exists, and that you all stood by and let it happen whilst coming over here playing innocent - THAT sticks in my craw.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> No Cheg, you know that's not what I'm doing - as i've said repeatedly on this thread, most of this stuff is the work of the same 4 or 5 people. But to constantly deny it exists, and that you all stood by and let it happen whilst coming over here playing innocent - THAT sticks in my craw.



I think its important that people can say what they like on any issue on a BB -without censorship - doesn't mean I agreed with all that is written on TG but nor am I going to try and dictate what others put up...its not up to me, its collective decision making, inclusive....unlike some areas I might mention.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2006)

You know what Chegs, I always thought of you as a wind up merchant, albeit a good tempered wind-up merchant you could have a josh with. But on this thread you've been caught aggressively denying any wrongdoing on tg, essentially lying and - now at least some of this  sorry sagas out in the open - want to hide behind the FAQ and some technicalities.

I thought better of you. Thought you had some integrity and some common decency, but your haste to defend some indefensible bollocks depresses me. Some people were clearly in the wrong and you still haven't the bollocks to criticise them. Instead you're whining about the truth coming out.

Shite. Clear the air and move on.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I think its important that people can say what they like on any issue on a BB -without censorship - doesn't mean I agreed with all that is written on TG but nor am I going to try and dictate what others put up...its not up to me, its collective decision making, inclusive....unlike some areas I might mention.




Without censorship my arse. You just stuck away the controversial stuff away from public view so that the same old faces could largely be as offensive as they like without comeback and with approval.

Does that strike you as particularly open or progressive an approach? Or a mealy-mouthed excuse to start a bitching forum...


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I've put up nothing - and I mean nothing on any part of Tolling Gang that I wouldn't completely and utterly stand by


Is this the same chegrimandi who was congratulating ern on a troll recently?

"Blimey ern was that really you posting on that thread?! v.restrained good stuff!"

Or the poster getting excited about the possibility of pissing about with the urban75 events calendar?

"just been back on urban for the first time today! theres a quaffing calendar now!...sorry but this has outstanding tomfoolery potential hehehe"

(Yeah, nice one, cheggers. Why not try and fuck people's social lives up, eh?)

To be fair, I can see that you're one of the better posters there, even if you did call me a "impotent liberal hippy fucking middle age bruce springsteen cunt"

 That's _weally wude _dude!

I remain extremely disappointed with kea too. I can't believe she was so two faced. Oh well, you live and learn.





> kea wrote:
> here's a v shitstirring idea - someone (NOT flims or bristle) resurrects some thread or other and several of us engage in deadly serious discussion on it. see what they do. they can't possibly claim it's a banning offence if we're seriously engaging on it, see.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I think its important that people can say what they like on any issue on a BB -without censorship - doesn't mean I agreed with all that is written on TG but nor am I going to try and dictate what others put up...its not up to me, its collective decision making, inclusive....unlike some areas I might mention.




oh grow up. The Files section on TG has 40 or so members. a hefty proportion of the regular membership of TG. 

if i call somebody a cunt, or plan a troll, or publish details, on an open forum on Urban, i'll be called to account, threatened with a ban, post deleted. Because it is predominantly open.

On The Files, you have 40 people - ALL former or current Urban posters - in there PRECISELY to bitch about Urban, with no such accountability except to each other. but since you're all in there for the same fucking reason, who's going to do the accounting?

Cheg - i don't know who you've slagged off here. i'd like to think you haven't. but you *have * stood by and let a secret forum exist which has breached trust, abused people, organised trolling etc - and you've failed to do anything about it. As have all the other 'it wasn't me, miss' posters like Thora et al.

Anything I have ever said about anybody on an Urban forum has been said in public. The same is NOT true of TG, which is why it has got so out of hand.

to claim otherwise makes you a flat out liar, Cheg. But then, if i was a Krs-style poster with that kind of patience, i could probably dig back and find posts where you and the others pleading innocence denied the existence of any such secret forum, or any such consistent bitching.

so what's a boy to do?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

and Cheg - see posts above.

That's you reporting back the possibility for fucking with a non-posting part of Urban for the fuck of it.

You're a liar and a hypocrite, mate.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Cheg - a direct question, seriously, to try and put my point:




			
				chegrimandi said:
			
		

> *I've put up nothing - and I mean nothing* on any part of Tolling Gang that I wouldn't completely and utterly stand by




do you "stand by" your post on TG that there is the potential for fucking with the Urban events calendar? And if so, why?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Feb 1, 2006)

tarannau said:
			
		

> Without censorship my arse. You just stuck away the controversial stuff away from public view so that the same old faces could largely be as offensive as they like without comeback and with approval.
> 
> Does that strike you as particularly open or progressive an approach? Or a mealy-mouthed excuse to start a bitching forum...


FFS!  Who fucking cares if there was bitching in a fucking private forum?  You'd have a point if it was done publicly, but it wasn't.  Oooh, oh miss!  Ern said something mean about me to Butchers!   

And all this "organised trolling" stuff - Kea and ern laughing about blackberries?  Hardly the most disruptive thing I've ever seen.  All this is getting blown way out of proportion.

Releasing bits of private conversations gained under dodgy circumstances, along with innuendo and suggestion, is what's doing real damage to people's feelings.

This is all too fucking playground, and I'm sick of all this "I'm really disappointed in you" crap     I'm really disappointed at the cuntish way mods here have dealt with this.  Fuck the lot of you.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

and so Thora joins the list of people walking away from this not because they're outraged but because they haven't got a fucking leg to stand on.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> FFS!  Who fucking cares if there was bitching in a fucking private forum?  .






			
				Thora said:
			
		

> I'm really disappointed at the cuntish way mods here have dealt with this.  Fuck the lot of you.



but how about the mods in TG who don't actually deal with anything at all.

if they did, we wouldn't be in this fucking situation.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> Cheg - a direct question, seriously, to try and put my point:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it was a fucking joke - for fuckssake - a fucking joke - I thought the quaffing calendar was a bit odd - and a bit OTT - have I made any attempt to fuck with it? no I haven't - ask king hypocrite himself if I have....

so yes I stand by it and really don't think its terribly offensive - it was a post made in jest. Make of that whatever capital you will.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

this is so fucking heartbreaking


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and Cheg - see posts above.
> 
> That's you reporting back the possibility for fucking with a non-posting part of Urban for the fuck of it.
> 
> You're a liar and a hypocrite, mate.



yes dub and i'm sure you never take the piss out of people on urban or TG down the pub or at any event. Why so po-faced? This faux outrage is ridiculous.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> it was a fucking joke - for fuckssake - a fucking joke - I thought the quaffing calendar was a bit odd - and a bit OTT - have I made any attempt to fuck with it? no I haven't - ask king hypocrite himself if I have....
> 
> so yes I stand by it and really don't think its terribly offensive - it was a post made in jest. Make of that whatever capital you will.




no, cheg, it was a deliberate provision of information about something that could be trolled. or even if that wasn't your intention, as a sentient being you'll have known full well that's what it could have been  used for.

case closed cheg - you didn't even stand by and let it happen, you actively joined in.

what worries me is that there's probably a similar disclosure to be made about all the 'i'm innocent, me' crowd over there.

HOW can The Files be accountable and modded if the mods are the very people who set The Files up, and when they include the likes of Ern?


----------



## kakuma (Feb 1, 2006)

as a neutral in this, it is all taken on trust that the u75 mods are telling the truth about all the reasons they are disgusted with thetollinggang

and if they are they have still had to get covert acces to a private forum on another bulletin board which is pretty shitty


----------



## Callie (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> To be fair, I can see that you're one of the better posters there, even if you did call me a "impotent liberal hippy fucking middle age bruce springsteen cunt"




well really, theres no need to bring poor old bruce into all this!


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes dub and i'm sure you never take the piss out of people on urban or TG down the pub or at any event. Why so po-faced? This faux outrage is ridiculous.




my outrage is anything but faux, cheg, i'm afraid.

I take the piss out of people on Urban on public forums, and i have to live with the consequences of that.

THAT'S the difference, and one you're fully aware of.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Is this the same chegrimandi who was congratulating ern on a troll recently?
> 
> "Blimey ern was that really you posting on that thread?! v.restrained good stuff!"
> 
> ...



ok, jesus you really are an idiot editor. The first bit that you've taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT was about ernies moderating of a bit on TG - it was nothing to do with urban. He had been quite restrained in his posting on TG. ok - so thats balls for a start. But then I'd expect nothing else.

The quaffing calendar thing I've expalined about - it was a joke and a jest - remember those? Have I done anything to fuck it up - no.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and so Thora joins the list of people walking away from this not because they're outraged but because they haven't got a fucking leg to stand on.


It's a real shame to see her go, because she did stand up to some of the trollers and wanted to get rid of The Files, but her subsequent denial about it all is really rather strange.

Thora: I can see that your intentions were decent so I'm baffled why you're putting yourself in a position of defending the indefensible. 

I hope you stay.


----------



## xes (Feb 1, 2006)

I've restrained from posting on this thread,but I've been reading it. And it stinks.

The utter hypocrasy of some posters,defending the undefensable,people getting upset cos they've been well and truly fucking rumbled. And then accuse mods on this forum of not handeling the situation very well!! WTF. How the fuck are they supposed to deal with it? Just sit back and let people disrupt things here? Not a fucking chance.

This needs sorting,and there's only one way to do it,in an OPEN forum,where the debate can be debated,where this can all be cleared up once and for all,it may not be pretty,but niether is the matter in hand.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

It is now impossible for anyone to use the argument that humans are basicly nice in a political argument again. If anything, this whole debacle has made my worldview even more cynical. When the revolution comes, I'll be at home picking my nails.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes dub and i'm sure you never take the piss out of people on urban or TG down the pub or at any event. Why so po-faced? This faux outrage is ridiculous.


Possibly Cheg because it's being done deliberately in order to piss off other people.

Look, I think there's fault on both sides in this affair and that some things have been taken out of context and that the situation has got out of hand. But I also think that there's a longstanding problem, which is that some people think it's always all right for them to wind up, disrupt and piss off other people because what _they_ want to do is far more important than anybody else's feelings (let alone what atmosphere people in general would like to have on the board). Sometimes this is connected to their politics, sometimes it's a personal thing.

Anyway, the point is that because that's the way they think, they will always go out of their way to upset other people, they will always think they have a right to do so and they will always, when they're not allowed to, scream that it's so unfair, they're being silenced, other people should just have thicker skins etc.

And, as it goes, a fair few of these people are involved in this sorry affair. And I don't believe it was ever going to be any other way.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> my outrage is anything but faux, cheg, i'm afraid.
> 
> I take the piss out of people on Urban on public forums, and i have to live with the consequences of that.
> 
> THAT'S the difference, and one you're fully aware of.



ok dub, if thats your line - you've never taken the piss out of anyone on these boards behind their back or discussed them in a critical way dowwn the pub.

Your sainthood awaits you sir!


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Ninjaboy said:
			
		

> and if they are they have still had to get covert acces to a private forum on another bulletin board which is pretty shitty


FYI: none of the mods have had "covert access" to any BB.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> The first bit that you've taken ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT was about ernies moderating of a bit on TG - it was nothing to do with urban.


Yeah, you're right - I only skim read that bit. Sorry for misrepresenting you there. My bad.

But posting up about the possibilities of screwing up the events diary on a hostile board really wasn't too smart, even if it was a 'joke.'

The insults I can live with. It's good to know what people really think of you.


----------



## kakuma (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> FYI: none of the mods have had "covert access" to any BB.



putting up details which you say is from their private forums i find a bit dodgy however you get it


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right - I only skim read that bit. Sorry for misrepresenting you there. My bad.
> 
> But posting up about the possibilities of screwing up the events diary on a hostile board really wasn't too smart, even if it was a 'joke.'
> 
> The insults I can live with. It's good to know what people really think of you.



thank you. you see how these things get blown out of proportion....

editor, i'm sure you've said things in the heat of the moment before. Can we just remember this please....


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm off to Sainsbury's, shall I stock up on supplies for all of you for this thread?


----------



## JTG (Feb 1, 2006)

I knew it wouldn't last.

Silly me for thinking for a while it might.

Fuck the lot of ya, I'm off.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> I'm off to Sainsbury's, shall I stock up on supplies for all of you for this thread?



You'll clear them out. This is post-apocalypse in the bunker. All the tinned food in the world won't go far enough, I fear.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> You'll clear them out. This is post-apocalypse in the bunker. All the tinned food in the world won't go far enough, I fear.


Mind you, remember when the invasion of Iraq happened and there were people on the news stocking up on bottled water at the local hypermarket? All desperate to show the world precisely how they were the most stupid people in England?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> editor, i'm sure you've said things in the heat of the moment before. Can we just remember this please....


Hey, most of the abuse aimed at me there (and there is a _lot _of it!) is water off a duck's back!

But there certainly is some unpleasant stuff there.

All the best 

Mr Scrotum


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

I was in the States when people were buying up duct tape and plastic sheeting. Makes that pale in comparison really.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes dub and i'm sure you never take the piss out of people on urban or TG down the pub or at any event. Why so po-faced? This faux outrage is ridiculous.




Of course folk take the piss out of each other, but they have the decency to do it largely in the open, allowing them to stand by their words and face the comeback if necessary.

To stretch the pub analogy you've used to extremes, you're not talking the odd word accidently in private, it's more as though you've hired a private room for a carefully selected minded group of mates so you can bitch about the other people nearby in the pub. High minded principles indeed.You honestly denying that Kea, Ern and others on this thread - Tg's moderators - have been out of line and actively trollling on u75 and boasting about it in the secret forums.

Pretty reprehensible whatever way you look at it. Especially after all the assurances that there wouldn't possibly be any of _that_ on the tg secret forums.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Fooking hell is this panto still going on?   

Open someones private mail and you'll get no sympathy from me if you read something about yourself you dont like.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Ninjaboy said:
			
		

> putting up details which you say is from their private forums i find a bit dodgy however you get it


But it's not 'private' as such - it was open to a significant chunk of their membership.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

hey look everyone! its a kangaroo court and you're all invited! fortunately I've been sentenced so I'm off down the clink


----------



## strung out (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> But it's not 'private' as such - it was open to a significant chunk of their membership.


Who were privately invited surely?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Open someones private mail and you'll get no sympathy from me if you read something about yourself you dont like.


No problem with the insults - and I sure got a lot of them!

Lots of problems with people using a forum to troll urban75, post up personal details of fellow posters, disrupt this site and laugh at people behind their backs, though.

But you're right. It's getting boring now.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Fooking hell is this panto still going on?
> 
> Open someones private mail and you'll get no sympathy from me if you read something about yourself you dont like.




it's not PRIVATE mail, is it, belushi? the analogy doesn't wash. it's 40 or so people systematically laying into people over here in a forum set up deliberately for that purpose. and many of whom continued to post here and deny it all.


do you think it's reasonable for that to happen?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> It is now impossible for anyone to use the argument that humans are basicly nice in a political argument again. If anything, this whole debacle has made my worldview even more cynical. When the revolution comes, I'll be at home picking my nails.



I think thats too sweeping a conclusion Crispy.

Remember that in terms of ACTIVELY planning this stuff, only a very few people were directly involved. Most people here have been as shocked as you, and I'm sure a large proportion of non-involved (ie non private forum) TTG people who are honest with themselves and not in denial and not in kneejerk Urban-mod-blaming mode, will also be shocked at all this disgraceful behaviour and will want to repudiate it.

That makes a majority here, and probably there, who are utterly opposed to all that sort of thing, not that largely leftish/radical bulletin board communities are very representative of the wider public, but I don't think you can logically conclude that most people, or even most revolutionaries!!, are bad people, look at Red Jezza's reaction for instance! Honest and forthright -- respct to hm -- chegri and a few others can do worse than look at his reaction.

Those TTG admins/mods who had access to that private forum but who stood back and let all this happen with only mild/sporadic attempts at restraining it (it seems), have (as Jezza said) some questions to answer not least to their own consciences.

Chegri and Thoras : your reactions are dishonest and I'm sorry to see you in such wriggling denial and blame displacement about all this, because I like you both.

Urban's not blame free in all this, but you CANNOT 'equally' (still less principally)  blame Urban, still less the Urban mods!

The founder and boss of your (largely excellent) forums has been found out getting up to despicable (indeed unforgiveable) antics, along with one or two accomplices, and several more turn a blind eye/let's just have a quiet life types, and you're blithering on about the supposed wrongdoings of the *Urban* mods?

Get a fucking grip man .... go to the pub tonight and think about it properly and away from a keyboard. Thats what I did last night, I was mainly chatting with people about Newbury anyway, but that's why when I came back drunk and late and read about eight more pages of shite on this thread, I was able to remain calm and reasonably objective.

Try it you might like it.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's not PRIVATE mail, is it, belushi? the analogy doesn't wash. it's 40 or so people systematically laying into people over here in a forum set up deliberately for that purpose. and many of whom continued to post here and deny it all.
> 
> 
> do you think it's reasonable for that to happen?



Yes it is private, the number of members of a private forum is irrelevant. I dont think anybody has denied TG has private forums, in fact I spoke with you about it recently.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> hey look everyone! its a kangaroo court and you're all invited! fortunately I've been sentenced so I'm off down the clink



Unfortunately, this is the internet, where the only power people can weild is over space they create. There are no rules, there are no police, there are no arbitrators. A kangaroo court is the best you can hope for, in the circumstances.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Yes it is private, the number of members of a private forum is irrelevant. I dont think anybody has denied TG has private forums, in fact I spoke with you about it recently.




the admission these forums follows WEEKS of denial of such a thing.

some people were still denying them on this thread.

THAT'S an issue.


----------



## Callie (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's 40 or so people systematically laying into people over here in a forum set up deliberately for that purpose. and many of whom continued to post here and deny it all.




I don't think thats true. Im upset by things that have been said over there and I wish I had done more to stop it but I do think youre wrong to say that the whole of the Junta (which is what I assume you mean when you use the number 40??) are all actively involved in slagging off people here.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I think thats too sweeping a conclusion Crispy.



I wasn't being that serious. I can't bring myself to be


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> the admission these forums follows WEEKS of denial of such a thing.
> 
> some people were still denying them on this thread.
> 
> THAT'S an issue.



I havent seen anyone deny TG has prvate forums. People on here have been complaining about it from the start.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> the admission these forums follows WEEKS of denial of such a thing.
> 
> some people were still denying them on this thread.
> 
> THAT'S an issue.


Why?  I never knew nor cared whether there was private forums on this site or on TTG before this sorry thread and although I now know, I still don't care.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

If you walk into an internet cafe or suchlike and someone hasn't logged out and a private webpage pops up on the computer you've sat in front of that's more akin to leaving your private letters pinned to a public noticeboard. When someone uses more than one local computer and doesn't have the nous to log out despite having made the same mistake on at least a dozen occasions over the last few years it is the act of a complete dunce, I'd say. I know of more than one person who has seen private stuff on public computers without even looking for it.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

I son't think secret forums are a bad idea. There's a mod's forum here and that's needed - the mods need a space to discuss their decisions. I think the problem over there is one of proportion and hierarchy. From what I've browsed and heard about, there are effectively 4 possible levels of authority at TG - Admin, Junta, Member, Gulag. The organisation is more vertical than here. Regardless of any specific behaviour by any specific people, I don't think that's a very good way to set up boards, as it can breed resentment or power struggles.


----------



## past caring (Feb 1, 2006)

I’ll play along, for the moment, with the editor's assertion that we’ve a mole in the Junta. Let’s take a look at what that means – because it’s instructive.

It means that the mole had access to absolutely _everything_ of any import – they wouldn’t have had access to the admin forums, but nothing other than stuff of a technical nature has been discussed in those. They’d have had access to “the Files” and they’ve had access to the Junta forum – where decisions on policy and bannings are made. In fact, they’d have had the opportunity to participate fully in those discussions – and almost certainly did.

What that means is they’d have been fully aware of the development and workings of TTG. Whilst it may have started as a bit of fucking about and with maybe even a majority of posters venting a bit of spleen about what they were dissatisfied with on U75, it very quickly moved on. We wanted – and want – the boards to be serious and don’t want them defined by any past history or gripes with U75.

Of course, with 40 odd people in the Junta, there isn’t unanimity about everything. Some discussions were heated and some decisions needed revisiting. I’m giving fuck all away to say that some of us found it harder to move on from our previous histories with U75 than did others. That meant that not only were some things posted that shouldn’t have been, it also meant that some people who should have respected decisions we’d arrived at didn’t do so.

There’s been an on-going attempt by some of us to close and delete “The Files” since before Xmas. To get rid of ‘em completely and simply stop stuff that involves individuals having a go at posters on U75. It’s taken more than one bite of the cherry – for reasons outlined above.

The thread where the photo of PieEye’s parents’ house was posted was the straw that broke the back of opposition to closing the files. The argument was being won gradually and that nonsense clinched it.

The “mole” (if there was such) would have been aware of all this. They’d have seen that the attempts of myself and others to close/delete the files permanently were entirely genuine. Did they speak up in our support? Did they PM me or any of the rest of us who were trying to move things on with their concerns? Did they fuck.

So, continuing to play along with there being a “mole”, what we’re left with is  two possible scenarios;

*One* – the mole has given you the lot and _you’ve_ decided to present only a partial picture of what’s gone on. You’ve deliberately decided to ignore the best efforts of myself and many others in an attempt to present TTG in the worst possible light.

*Two* – your mole has deliberately presented you with a partial picture, again, in an attempt to undermine the best efforts of cooler heads. The editor isn’t stupid and must have known this to be the case. Went ahead anyway, of course – whilst still having the gall to get on his high horse about how despicable “snitches” are.

Truly pathetic.

I’ve said my piece on this. Delete my U75 account, please.


----------



## strung out (Feb 1, 2006)

I and I thought other urbanites too... was well aware of secret forums on ttg a long time ago, in the same way that I was aware of one or two secret forum on urban. They didn't interest me because I hadn't been invited to view them and wouldn't expect to read them because I hadn't been invited.

Surely people can see the difference between taking the piss/bit of trolling some online message board (all reasonably unpleasant things but not particularly heinous) and illegally hacking into a server in order to view details of a private forum? This is what appears to have happened. Even if the mods here were not responsible for this (which incidentally I don't think they were) surely they can see the difference between some unpleasant things on a *private* forum and gaining information from this private forum through illegal/unethical means?

I'm unaligned to both forums by the way... I have an infinitely better and more successful online message board to run!!!


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I don't think thats true. Im upset by things that have been said over there and I wish I had done more to stop it but I do think youre wrong to say that the whole of the Junta (which is what I assume you mean when you use the number 40??) are all actively involved in slagging off people here.




i accept that perhaps i'm not being precise in the way i express things.

but how do you expect us to react, finding out (after STRENOUS denials) that a forum exists on TG called The Files (which rather telegraphs its purpose) SOLELY for bitching about Urban and the people on it?

and i've seen posts on there from people i considered friends slagging me and my friends.

that sticks in my craw and i don't give two fucks how the editor got the information.

it's not ern and anna key and swarthy that bother me. it's all the people i previously respected not doing ENOUGH to stop it (i accept there have been efforts) and then denying it was happening.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 1, 2006)

Well 'dunce' is a bit harsh - most people are very poor at practicing computer security - remember the password for some choclate experiment?

Always just assume that everything that you write on the internet is public.  The most damage is done when working under the false illusion of security / privacy - as seen on this thread where I'm sure a few people would like to revise what they wrote in private in the light of its wider distribution.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> If you walk into an internet cafe or suchlike and someone hasn't logged out and a private webpage pops up on the computer you've sat in front of that's more akin to leaving your private letters pinned to a public noticeboard. When someone uses more than one local computer and doesn't have the nous to log out despite having made the same mistake on at least a dozen occasions over the last few years it is the act of a complete dunce, I'd say. I know of more than one person who has seen private stuff on public computers without even looking for it.



Are you claiming thats what happened in this case Mrs M? or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters.

Lets not forget hacking into another internet site is an extremely serious matter.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> I’ll play along, for the moment, with the editor's assertion that we’ve a mole in the Junta. Let’s take a look at what that means – because it’s instructive.
> 
> It means that the mole had access to absolutely _everything_ of any import – they wouldn’t have had access to the admin forums, but nothing other than stuff of a technical nature has been discussed in those. They’d have had access to “the Files” and they’ve had access to the Junta forum – where decisions on policy and bannings are made. In fact, they’d have had the opportunity to participate fully in those discussions – and almost certainly did.
> 
> ...


I second this, and follow pc out of the door.


----------



## Callie (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's not ern and anna key and swarthy that bother me. it's all the people i previously respected not doing ENOUGH to stop it (i accept there have been efforts) and then denying it was happening.



I totally understand that, I was just very confused as to where the figure 40 was coming from? Thats also why I said that I wished I had done more to stop it.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I totally understand that, I was just very confused as to where the figure 40 was coming from? Thats also why I said that I wished I had done more to stop it.




those are the number of people i believe have access to the Files. i  may be wrong in this, i don't have any direct access to that stuff.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I totally understand that, I was just very confused as to where the figure 40 was coming from? Thats also why I said that I wished I had done more to stop it.




if that's the case, and if perhaps PC, thora etc are of the same opinion, why the attempt to push it all back at us, as if we're the bad guys here?

myself and my partner and my friends have been systematically abused and betrayed in a forum set up for expressly that purpose, and yet the argument is supposed to be about how i KNOW that?


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 1, 2006)

Tedix said:
			
		

> I'm unaligned to both forums by the way... I have an infinitely better and more successful online message board to run!!!


Funny how we're turning out to be less childish than the others.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> I second this, and follow pc out of the door.



I'm not going anywhere, but Past Caring's post was a very good one, and seems to me to be a fairly straight version of affairs. There's been plenty of collateral damage, but as Brainaddict said a while back - it's not a mountain. It's a bit bigger than a molehill maybe, but in the grand scheme of Israel vs. Palestine, Science vs. God, City vs. Rovers and Rock vs. Hard Place, it's _no big deal_. Unfortunately, once you're sufficiently emotionally involved with something, it's very very hard to disengage.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> I’ve said my piece on this. Delete my U75 account, please.


If you hadn't steamed in with the personal insults, I would have been happy to state that you were one of the people who opposed The Files and the activities promoted by some people therein.

But I still have trouble understanding why you collectively did nothing to stop some Junta members - and admins for fuck's sake - from your site continuing to actively troll urban75.

You must have known that such conduct was going to get a reaction, sooner or later.

I dearly wish that none of this had happened. I wish that both boards could have gone their way amicably.

But a handful of people on your boards made damn sure that could never happen by continuing to piss about on urban, causing disruption and extra work for the already over-worked mods.

If you want someone to blame, look to the stirrers in your forum called The Files.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Are you claiming thats what happened in this case Mrs M? or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters.
> 
> Lets not forget hacking into another internet site is an extremely serious matter.


It's not an attempt to muddy the waters. I have declined offers from others to tell all when I have been in the pub, supermarket or wherever with people chuckling about this whole business. I only got involved when it was brought to my attention that people's private details were being bandied about. Recently my family have been getting nasty calls. Funnily enough they ceased after I went ballistic last night. Could be a complete coincidence of course.


----------



## Shirl (Feb 1, 2006)

Thora said:
			
		

> FFS!  Who fucking cares if there was bitching in a fucking private forum?


I care when my home and my partner's whereabouts are discussed.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I totally understand that, I was just very confused as to where the figure 40 was coming from?


That's the number of TG members who have access to the forum called, The Files.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Past Caring's post DOES have some truth to it, and perhaps things could have been handled better.

what he left out is the bit where people are hurt and angry. i don't care about due process, i care about being fucked about by people i thought of as friends.

and if the decent TG posters - who are probably in the majority, even now - did what they could to stop this shit and failed, i believe they should have realised then and there that TG was fucked.


----------



## Wolfie (Feb 1, 2006)

I think for me the worrying thing is not the piss-taking - given the people involved it was innevitable that certain of us were going to mocked - big deal really - it's the concerted and organised trolling that's been going on.
In the leaked stuff that I've seen a quick run through shows  threads with titles such as "Congratualtions Trollers", "Thread Bumping to Troll Urban75", "Bugger I can't Troll Urban 75", "Trolling With Different Names", "Annakey - Is a Board War Innevitable?" ...  the list goes on.

That alone is enough to convince me of what has been going on over at TTG - wether it's a partial picture or not there is enough of it to expose what the true purpose of TTG is for at least some of its founders.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

xes said:
			
		

> I've restrained from posting on this thread,but I've been reading it. And it stinks.
> 
> *The utter hypocrasy of some posters,defending the undefensable,people getting upset cos they've been well and truly fucking rumbled. And then accuse mods on this forum of not handeling the situation very well!! WTF. How the fuck are they supposed to deal with it? Just sit back and let people disrupt things here? Not a fucking chance.*
> 
> This needs sorting,and there's only one way to do it,in an OPEN forum,where the debate can be debated,where this can all be cleared up once and for all,it may not be pretty,but niether is the matter in hand.



Excellent post, middle paragraph particularly.

Blaming the Urban mods for all this? Unbelievable!! And fundamentally dishonest-- perhaps to yourselves more than to this thread.


----------



## Callie (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> if that's the case, and if perhaps PC, thora etc are of the same opinion, why the attempt to push it all back at us, as if we're the bad guys here?
> 
> myself and my partner and my friends have been systematically abused and betrayed in a forum set up for expressly that purpose, and yet the argument is supposed to be about how i KNOW that?




I assume youre asking that question to me? I am not trying to push anything back at urban, Ive never suggested that anyone here is a bad guy. Although I am a little pissed of at whoever the mole is for they way they 'exposed' some of the information.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Recently my family have been getting nasty calls. Funnily enough they ceased after I went ballistic last night. .


WHAAAT???? this is straight up????
If so, that's outrageous.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I assume youre asking that question to me? I am not trying to push anything back at urban, Ive never suggested that anyone here is a bad guy. Although I am a little pissed of at whoever the mole is for they way they 'exposed' some of the information.


errr....shoot the messenger???


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Wolfie said:
			
		

> I think for me the worrying thing is not the piss-taking - given the people involved it was innevitable that certain of us were going to mocked - big deal really - it's the concerted and organised trolling that's been going on.
> In the leaked stuff that I've seen a quick run through shows  threads with titles such as "Congratualtions Trollers", "Thread Bumping to Troll Urban75", "Bugger I can't Troll Urban 75", "Trolling With Different Names", "Annakey - Is a Board War Innevitable?" ...  the list goes on.
> 
> That alone is enough to convince me of what has been going on over at TTG - wether it's a partial picture or not there is enough of it to expose what the true purpose of TTG is for at least some of its founders.




precisely.

Thora, General Ludd, Past Caring etc etc etc - i don't doubt your honest and motives in being involved in TG and that's why i didn't really get involved in TG stuff over here (indeed i told pk to shut up about it more than once).

but what happened is that you tried to paper over the cracks that inevitably arose by having ern and swarthy and anna key et al at the core of what you were doing. Papering them  over wasn't enough. this was ALWAYS going to happen.

like wolfie, i didn't respond to the personal abuse - and believe me, i saw plenty in the public forums, let alone the private ones.

i DID respond to the other stuff, which some of you at least have had the good grace to admit was out of order. and this sort of stuff IS unacceptable.

meanwhile, all of this is being denied - even by the decent posters, or at least on urban proper (not necessarily in PMs). 

and all the claims that were no systematic attempts to troll Urban are a fucking lie, as the above thread titles prove.

i understand the impulse to deny things, to close ranks, but it's just not fucking TRUE is it?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I assume youre asking that question to me? I am not trying to push anything back at urban, Ive never suggested that anyone here is a bad guy. Although I am a little pissed of at whoever the mole is for they way they 'exposed' some of the information.



i guess it was directed partly at you, but perhaps it was really a more general point.

re: the mole. dunno who it is, dunno how they got it. but whatever they've done doesn't interest me.

i don't care about 5000 posts that cause no harm. i care about 1 post that does.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

Straight up Jezza. I could of course just not answer calls and wait for answermachine messages but with my Mum in poor health and a sister recovering from meningitis it's best to answer calls straight away.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> WHAAAT???? this is straight up????
> If so, that's outrageous.




as yet, this is circumstantial so i think it's best not to overplay this./


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

I don't know who was doing it but it's been distressing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

JTG said:
			
		

> I knew it wouldn't last.
> 
> Silly me for thinking for a while it might.
> 
> Fuck the lot of ya, I'm off.



From this thread? Or from Urban altogether?

I haven't yet had a chance to find out  what happened to you on Saturday, which sounds from this thread as if it was a disgrace on any level.

If there's anything I can do to help, I will -- just contact me at any time.

But I *really, really* don't want you to leave this forum. You're a mate in real life and will remain so I hope. Lors of people have got upset and heated about what's been going on, and it seems you'd rather return to a site a few key members of which have shown no intention or willingness to put a stop to all this, and are at the heart of all the bad feeling generated both at TTG and here?

I think you're making the wrong decision to leave here, but in any case it needn't necessarily be a matter of choosing between the two sites. Jezza is thinking through his position, maybe a good idea to follow his example and retain a foot in both camps for a while yet -- lots of decent people on TTG with nothing to do with this, same at Urban. If you have a major grievance against an Urbanite, surely that can be sorted somehow? (As I said don't know the details yet).

Don't leave us though, please!

Jezza if JTG has already gome could you c and p this and send it to him please?


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> . I only got involved when it was brought to my attention that people's private details were being bandied about. Recently my family have been getting nasty calls. Funnily enough they ceased after I went ballistic last night. Could be a complete coincidence of course.



thats quite a claim mrs m and without any evidence it might be prudent if you retract it. Unless of course you are only interested in fanning the flames...

no one on TG has been prank calling you ffs!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm grateful for your omniscience cheg. I wish I was all seeing and all knowing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

gurrier said:
			
		

> Why?  I never knew nor cared whether there was private forums on this site or on TTG before this sorry thread and although I now know, I still don't care.



That seems to contradict key bits of your earlier, long post from last night, gurrier. It was an excellent post in which you seemed yourself to recognise the dangers of the suspicions and distrust likely to be generated by private forums.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> thats quite a claim mrs m and without any evidence it might be prudent if you retract it. Unless of course you are only interested in fanning the flames...
> 
> no one on TG has been prank calling you ffs!



I agree, and you should contact the police immediately Mrs M.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

Funnily enough they ceased from the moment I threatened that on this very thread


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

btw, BT's advice was to change our number. That's just not convenient.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Funnily enough they ceased from the moment I threatened that on this very thread



Even though, without evidence all it is is conincidence. Speculation and suspicion are not conducive to ending all this.


----------



## gurrier (Feb 1, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> That seems to contradict key bits of your earlier, long post from last night, gurrier. It was an excellent post in which you seemed yourself to recognise the dangers of the suspicions and distrust likely to be generated by private forums.


Not really - I understand how they lead to suspicion and hence end up making things more difficult for mods, but, of course, I'm above all that suspicion stuff


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

It's very hard not to. I'm pretty drained atm (real life stuff). It only became a suspicion when I read stuff on here yesterday. If people are prepared to post up pictures of somebody's parents house, betray old friends 'for the files', reveal phone numbers then I'm afraid they cast suspicion on themselves.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> It's very hard not to. I'm pretty drained atm (real life stuff). It only became a suspicion when I read stuff on here yesterday. If people are prepared to post up pictures of somebody's parents house, betray old friends 'for the files', reveal phone numbers then I'm afraid they cast suspicion on themselves.



Fair enough - take it easy Mrs.M.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> It's very hard not to. I'm pretty drained atm (real life stuff). It only became a suspicion when I read stuff on here yesterday. If people are prepared to post up pictures of somebody's parents house, betray old friends 'for the files', reveal phone numbers then I'm afraid they cast suspicion on themselves.



I've never seen any of your details posted up Mrs M on the TG.

BTW the picture of the house in question was one posted up on Urban.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

I should say that if, in "real life" somebody collated information on people whom they were know not to like, if that included private information such as place of residence and so on, and if they shared that information with other people of similar mind, then I wonder if there would be legal problems arising from it. I do mean "wonder" - I don't know.

But it's a mad thing to do, entirely unjustifiable, and while I appreciate that a goodly number of people seem to have considered it wrong and to have argued against it - successfully - I'm not sure whether they're asking themselves what in God's name the proponents of such a idea were doing it for. I mean it's bizarre.


----------



## xes (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I I'm not sure whether they're asking themselves what in God's name the proponents of such a idea were doing it for. I mean it's bizarre.


Exactly,fuck all the bitching and trolling. This is the main issue IMO. Why is ernesto collecting info on people,and what are his intentions with this info?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I've never seen any of your details posted up Mrs M on the TG.
> 
> BTW the picture of the house in question was one posted up on Urban.




in a very different context, as you know, fella.

you know as well as i do that Ern has claimed to know where Wolfie lives, and made threats on that basis. you also know that firky / soreenkid claims to know where the house in the picture is. You also know that private numbers etc have been shared.

i accept that Ern is an impotent fucking loser, but nonetheless these details are being bandied about, these threats are being implied, this is all happening in secret. and it's out of fucking order.

the thing is, the 'good guys' - and you're one of them - will concede that things have happened that you don't approve of, but simultaneously are feigning surprise or denial that we're reacting like this.

NOTHING of this kind has happened on Urban ever, but we're still being painted as the aggressors here. which is utter bullshit.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

As far as Im aware Ern hasnt been collecting info on people


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> in a very different context, as you know, fella.



Oh yes, in a thread taking the piss out of you which didnt last very long. No personal details were revealed.


----------



## Juice Terry (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> As far as Im aware Ern hasnt been collecting info on people


How the fuck can you still deny it?  

Quote:
ernestolynch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How old is he, what job does he do, and what is his education, please?
(Parental background would be helpful, also, tovarisch)

Sat Jan 07, 2006 10:41 pm
==================

Photo King of Tropico
For the files wink.gif

Er, ++. Pretty sure he is public school. No idea of job. Said he worked for the +++ dealing +++ so god knows.

Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:07 pm
==================

kea

------------------------------------------------------------------------
last i heard, he told me he was running the "++++watch" website.

Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:23 pm
=================



(this really stinks, by the way)
(+++ = details removed for privacy)


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> As far as Im aware Ern hasnt been collecting info on people




that's not true belushi. i'm not calling you a liar - although you know ern well enough i think to perhaps know all this. We've even seen posts REQUESTING such stuff.

even if he's not collecting it, why is it even being DISCUSSED?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm very interested in learning more about how this information was obtained, there seems to be a lot of different stories going around. Its begining to look to me as if someone has been playing a very dangerous game.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

belushi - see above.

pack of fucking lies, mate. feel free to claim Ern was just 'joking'. But don't be surprised when we don't see it that way.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> As far as Im aware Ern hasnt been collecting info on people


Ernesto, enquiring about a fellow TG member (without their knowledge) in the secret forum:


> ernestolynch
> How old is he, what job does he do, and what is his education, please?
> (Parental background would be helpful, also, tovarisch)


The ever lovable and obliging kea and phototropic were on hand to pass on details about his age, schooling and current and previous job status within a few hours. I've no idea if anything else was sent by PM.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I'm very interested in learning more about how this information was obtained, there seems to be a lot of different stories going around. Its begining to look to me as if someone has been playing a very dangerous game.




and again the emphasis on how the information was gained.

since people on TG are actively collecting information on people here, should you really give a fuck how we found out about it?
rank fucking hypocrisy


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's not true belushi. i'm not calling you a liar - although you know ern well enough i think to perhaps know all this. We've even seen posts REQUESTING such stuff.
> 
> even if he's not collecting it, why is it even being DISCUSSED?



I honestly havent seen any post from him requesting personal info (I dont everything posted on either U75 or TG) but as far as I was aware 'The Files' has just been a longstanding joke.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I honestly havent seen any post from him requesting personal info (I dont everything posted on either U75 or TG) but as far as I was aware 'The Files' has just been a longstanding joke.




see above.

i DONT find a forum where this sort of thing happens funny. i find it vile at best, threatening at worst. as demonstrated by Shirl , by Mrs M etc etc etc.

how do you feel about the fact that things happening on your boards have made people feel unsafe in their own homes?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm really sorry to hear Mrs M's story, I saw her post last night but didn't think the calls were necesarily anyything to do with TTG -- I really hope not.
The coincidence of timing looks suspicious but I'd rather it was a coincidence than some rogue TTGite getting up to tricks, I'd really hope said person wouild be banned if it was.

Erm ETA, and in real life, PROSECUTED!! 

============================
I've seen past caring's long post from the previous page now, and General Ludd's concurrence with it. I'm sorry to see them leave. Bad decision folks, un;ess you think TTG can still survive and thrive after all this. It can't, despite the many good people still involved, unless said good people get off their arses and push for a few strategic bootings out.

Both pc and GL seem to think the worst and most heinous outrage is a mole leaking stuff from 'The Files'. Rather than the existence and content of the Files in the first place!

I do take past caring's points that efforts were made by some people such as him on that forum to stop the worst excesses, and even to shut down the Files. PC was a bit more honest than chegri or Thora or Belushi seem to be about accepting that unacceptable things have been going on.

(And, yet again, I accept that not everyone on Urban has been blameless in this either. But as a consequence not a component of all this, mainly)

I suppose what a lot of Urban people, and decent TTG people, would like is an immediaate closure of the Files forum over there (if that hasn't aleady been done -- apologies if I've missed anything). And a bit more honesty from its participants that that private forum was bang out of order and won't continue. And that certain key, active participants get their arses thoroughly kicked or worse. And for in-denial TTG people to stop wittering on whingeingly here about hacking and moles -- it's a diversion fom the main issue and you know it.

If there's been hacking (which I'm very sceptical about) it's out of order sure, but to argue from that that the contents and purpose of that private form are not important is a disgrace. I appreciate that  PC hasn't denied that things were very out of order, nor has GL really, but others have come very close to denying that the Files and contents and key players are an issue of any importance. If there's been a mole, TTGites should ask themselves : why did that mole feel so strongly that he/she leaked the material?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and again the emphasis on how the information was gained.
> 
> since people on TG are actively collecting information on people here, should you really give a fuck how we found out about it?
> rank fucking hypocrisy



As I said Im not aware of anyone actively collecting information on people here, if they were I'd oppose it.

Hacking into internet sites is an extrememly serious business, I dont think its something that can be just brushed under the carpet.


----------



## Radar (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I don't know who was doing it but it's been distressing.


Fuck it..  In case it happens again go straight to your telco's malicious calls unit. They can put a trace on your number, find out who's responsible and inform the cops.

Pissing around on a bbs is one thing, but reaching out and fucking with peoples liives is beyond the pale


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm just glad we haven't had any more since last night.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> should you really give a fuck how we found out about it?


Yes, I think we should. It's potentially a legal issue and it's also an ethical one.

(I'm not making any judgements on what's happened, by the way, merely observing that nobody can just say "well, we're the good guys so what we do is OK".)


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

one final thing, and then I'm outta this thread; past caring, Thora, JTg and butchers, please continue to post on both boards. I think you have been too lax with your rogue elements, but heavens! it's unreasonable to expect you to be saints. the good stilll outweighs the bad.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> As I said Im not aware of anyone actively collecting information on people here, if they were I'd oppose it.



it happened, you can read it for yourself ^^




			
				Belushi said:
			
		

> Hacking into internet sites is an extrememly serious business, I dont think its something that can be just brushed under the carpet.



i don't believe there was any hacking, and i don't fucking care. i care about what's being said about me and my partner and my friends.

if you can't see why that's a serious fucking issue, you're not the person i believed you to be.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

I'd also be particularly concerned about the fact that all this can be read on public computers in Brixton because someone on ttg never logs out.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> see above.
> 
> i DONT find a forum where this sort of thing happens funny. i find it vile at best, threatening at worst. as demonstrated by Shirl , by Mrs M etc etc etc.
> 
> how do you feel about the fact that things happening on your boards have made people feel unsafe in their own homes?



Like I've said repeatedly, I havent seen anyone collecting personal info over there. If this has been going on then please post up the evidence.

Mrs M should immediately go to the police rather than post up accusation on a bulletin board. I'm pretty syre its fuck all to do with TG.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Like I've said repeatedly, I havent seen anyone collecting personal info over there. If this has been going on then please post up the evidence.



we already have. numerous times. why are you pretending not to be able to read, belushi? it's above, you can read it, why are you still fucking denying it?


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Hacking into internet sites is an extrememly serious business, I dont think its something that can be just brushed under the carpet.


Has anyone come up with any proof that the site was hacked yet?

I keep on asking and have even offered tips on how to track down a hacker. Has anyone acted on it?

You know the thing that really gets me down about all this? It's the atmosphere of distrust that's been created on urban75 by the various TG trolls.

New posters are now eyed suspiciously, people tend to report posts quicker because they think it's a returning troller, some topics are almost impossible to discuss and the mods find themselves on a short fuse and having to do a lot more work.

And I still can't believe why another site would not only let their key members, mods and _admins_ troll at will here, but they even set up a special forum for the job.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 1, 2006)

Police advice is to go to your phone company. Phone company say, change your number.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> one final thing, and then I'm outta this thread; past caring, Thora, JTg and butchers, please continue to post on both boards. I think you have been too lax with your rogue elements, but heavens! it's unreasonable to expect you to be saints. the good stilll outweighs the bad.



Only if those rogue elements are properly dealt with though, and with the courtesy of  Urban 75 being told that they've been dealt with.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I honestly havent seen any post from him requesting personal info (I dont everything posted on either U75 or TG) .


well, I HAVE.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Police advice is to go to your phone company. Phone company say, change your number.



Surely the calls can be traced?


----------



## Radar (Feb 1, 2006)

And round and round and round we go.

Still bloody trolling


----------



## strung out (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I'd also be particularly concerned about the fact that all this can be read on public computers in Brixton because someone on ttg never logs out.


Is this definitely what happened then?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it happened, you can read it for yourself ^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I havent seen anything, but feel free to show me   

Sorry but I think your going to have to accept that some people dont like you and to your face and behind your back they are going to be uncomplimentary about you, in real life, down the pub etc and in cyberspace. I have friends who get slagged off all the time on here, soemtimes by you, and Im absolutely certain people slag me off behind my back, that just life I'm afraid.

IMHO the hacking issue is far more serious and I think people are beginning to relaise that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I should say that if, in "real life" somebody collated information on people whom they were know not to like, if that included private information such as place of residence and so on, and if they shared that information with other people of similar mind, then I wonder if there would be legal problems arising from it. I do mean "wonder" - I don't know.
> 
> But it's a mad thing to do, entirely unjustifiable, and while I appreciate that a goodly number of people seem to have considered it wrong and to have argued against it - successfully - I'm not sure whether they're asking themselves what in God's name the proponents of such a idea were doing it for. I mean it's bizarre.



Excellent post.

But : you say that the practice of information gathering has been successfully argued against and presumably now (!) stopped.

Well maybe -- maybe -- it's been stopped (have 'The Files' been closed though?). But if the rogue elements responsible for it go unpunished by the others, then said rogues are getting away with far too much IMO.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm afraid I don't believe this stuff about "hacking". From what I know of the situation it's very unlikely that any such thing occurred. And I'm not exactly computer illiterate. I hear people complain about being "hacked" all the time, like that occurs by magic somehow, and it never turns out to be actual intrusion. It's all people giving their passwords to the wrong people, or not logging out, or letting someone register who they shouldn't have, or picking really obvious passwords etc etc, all frequently combined with forgetting that such a thing ever happened.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> we already have. numerous times. why are you pretending not to be able to read, belushi? it's above, you can read it, why are you still fucking denying it?



Well just show me the posts in question then cos I cant bloody fine 'em!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

Tedix said:
			
		

> Is this definitely what happened then?


No.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> well, I HAVE.



I havent, why not just show me where  the posts are instead of getting angry?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I havent, why not just show me where  the posts are instead of getting angry?


#1082 should do the job, no?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Radar said:
			
		

> And round and round and round we go.
> 
> Still bloody trolling



Who?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> #1082 should do the job, no?



Thanks, at last a straight answer


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Well just show me the posts in question then cos I cant bloody fine 'em!



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4144099&postcount=1082

You must have bad eyes mate.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 1, 2006)

Christ, I only just read this 

Exchanging people's personal details (particularly ones that they wish to be kept private) is right out of fucking order.  It's bollocks like this that made me not want to bother with TTG in the first place.


----------



## strung out (Feb 1, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> No.


So it wasn't someone forgetting to log out then?


----------



## xes (Feb 1, 2006)

Do the people/persons who have had info on them "harvested" know about it? Cos if not,they should.

And belushi,read the thread,it's there in black and white man.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

Tedix said:
			
		

> So it wasn't someone forgetting to log out then?


I don't know.


----------



## Sorry. (Feb 1, 2006)

I'm fed up of the casual misrepresentation on here of what's been going on at TTG. To an extent it's understandable, because when personal animosity is involved you always see the worst in people.

I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here. Not a co-ordinated boardwar but a few people, mucking about. Think about all the people you've generously divided into good tollers and bad tollers ( the former to tut-tut, the latter to throw endless unjustified calumnies at  ), do you really think the former weren't enjoying TTG for the basic reason of it being a good message board. That the likes of myself, who has never been banned from here, has never had more than the odd run-in with the editor, could be bothered wasting my time with a board that was simply aimed at destroying  (how exactly?) this place?

The other stuff painted as somehow deeply sinister? Well to date the only real life repurcussion I've come across is what happened to JTG and Bristle. No visits to workplaces, no mysterious phonecalls etc etc. In fact I'd struggle to recall a single instance of a genuine, new piece of information (ie. not something that originated here) about someone being posted up on TTG, let alone acted upon. Whilst there was stuff we disagreed on in running the place, I for one will always reject the notion that _any_ poster on TTG (fuck this good toller/bad toller bullshit) is any of the things mentioned in the wild swivel-eyed paranoid bullshit that's been spouted on here. Lest we forget that Ernestolynch, public enemy no.1 has actually never done anything IRL to anyone on U75, restricting himself to fucking about on the internet. He's not collating information in some grand stalkeresque conspiracy and many of you having met him, know him to a perfectly sane, normal human being. In fact, it's ern, who had that highly dangerous paedophile blog set up about him, one that could have genuinely had tragic real life consequences. 

I had not actually intended to post again, but having seen the direction this thread was heading down I felt it necessary to do so.  

Cheers, I liked it here for the most part.


----------



## strung out (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm fed up of the casual misrepresentation on here of what's been going on at TTG. To an extent it's understandable, because when personal animosity is involved you always see the worst in people.
> 
> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here. Not a co-ordinated boardwar but a few people, mucking about. Think about all the people you've generously divided into good tollers and bad tollers ( the former to tut-tut, the latter to throw endless unjustified calumnies at  ), do you really think the former weren't enjoying TTG for the basic reason of it being a good message board. That the likes of myself, who has never been banned from here, has never had more than the odd run-in with the editor, could be bothered wasting my time with a board that was simply aimed at destroying  (how exactly?) this place?
> 
> ...


Excellent post


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Exchanging people's personal details (particularly ones that they wish to be kept private) is right out of fucking order.


It also brings up a slew of legal issues too. 

Incidentally, there's some other, quite serious, legal issues that could be implicated in some of the TG's activities too. A 'private' forum is not exempt from the law, you see.

But only a tosser goes crawling off to the law over a BB spat.


----------



## fat hamster (Feb 1, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Funnily enough they ceased from the moment I threatened that on this very thread


All the more reason to contact the police, Mrs M.

I really doubt that anyone from TTG would be responsible for such calls, but it needs to be sorted, for your and your family's sake and now for the wider U75/TTG public too.

I'm very sorry that you have had to put up with the calls on top of everything else you've been dealing with recently.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

sorry - perhaps you'd like to explain all that to Shirl, to mrs m, to Pie Eye?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here


This is exactly the sort of thing I have a problem with. One set of people take it upon themselves to upset another set and when they've succeeded in that, they say "what are you getting upset about, we were just having a laugh".

All good fun till somebody gets hurt, eh?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Was that aimed at Sorry Dub? Maybe it should have been ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry said:
			
		

> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here






			
				Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> This is exactly the sort of thing I have a problem with. One set of people take it upon themselves to upset another set and when they've succeeded in that, they say "what are you getting upset about, we were just having a laugh".
> 
> All good fun till somebody gets hurt, eh?



Agreed, thoroughly.

Sorry is whitewashing ern and others' behaviour IMO.


----------



## Sue (Feb 1, 2006)

I've never logged onto TTG boards and all I know about it is what's posted on here. People on both 'sides' are obviously feeling upset, betrayed even, but to be perfectly blunt...think everyone's getting a bit carried away with who said what to who and how and when and everything else. 

Can it not just be agreed that mention of TTG/TTG posters not be made here and vice versa on TTG?   

<Awaits flaming from all sides>


----------



## montevideo (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> In fact I'd struggle to recall a single instance of a genuine, new piece of information (ie. not something that originated here) about someone being posted up on TTG




can you ask butchersapron where got my real name & the information about my 'association' with bristol poly? 

Just for peace of mind, like.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> Can it not just be agreed that mention of TTG/TTG posters not be made here and vice versa on TTG?



What we need, is some sort of 'Roadmap'


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> What we need, is some sort of 'Roadmap'


The National Bank at a profit....


----------



## Sue (Feb 1, 2006)

It is all going a bit Middle East in here...


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4144099&postcount=1082
> 
> You must have bad eyes mate.



Cheers, this thread is so fast moving.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Cheers, this thread is so fast moving.




oh come on, that was posted about four times.

so now you can see that personal details WERE being collected.- what's your response, since you denied this was happening?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> In fact I'd struggle to recall a single instance of a genuine, new piece of information (ie. not something that originated here) about someone being posted up on TTG, let alone acted upon.


Do PMs count as originating on here?  Because if not, I think you may want to scroll back a few pages and read wolfie's posts before you talk shite.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm fed up of the casual misrepresentation on here of what's been going on at TTG. To an extent it's understandable, because when personal animosity is involved you always see the worst in people.
> 
> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here. Not a co-ordinated boardwar but a few people, mucking about.


It is MORE than just mucking about. A LOT more; such 'mucking about' potentially causes untold grief and hassle for unpaid volunteer mods


> Lest we forget that Ernestolynch, public enemy no.1 has actually never done anything IRL to anyone on U75, restricting himself to fucking about on the internet. He's not collating information in some grand stalkeresque conspiracy


so why collect info, full stop? to what end.
I know I said I'm off this thread, but I couldn't let this pass
ETA: Sorry, you disappoint me


----------



## Radar (Feb 1, 2006)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Who?



THB I'm not sure myself, just looking at the atmosphere that's been created.

Disruption. mistrust, finger pointing.

A certain stalinist must still be pissing himself


----------



## MysteryGuest (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> Can it not just be agreed that mention of TTG/TTG posters not be made here and vice versa on TTG?
> 
> <Awaits flaming from all sides>




Urban doesn't have a "files" forum.  The situation is not symmetrical.


----------



## Juice Terry (Feb 1, 2006)

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~d1rea/head in the sand.jpg


----------



## Sue (Feb 1, 2006)

MysteryGuest said:
			
		

> Urban doesn't have a "files" forum.  The situation is not symmetrical.



Well agree that stuff about U75 not be posted in there either? Obviously that would involve a certain amount of trust but really, what's the alternative?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

MysteryGuest said:
			
		

> Urban doesn't have a "files" forum.  The situation is not symmetrical.




regardless of what went on in the Files forum, this is the fundamental point. I don't know what gets discussed between the very few mods on this site. But to claim it's in anyway parallel to a 40+ forum set up by admission for the express purpose of keeping Urban bitching private and one place is a nonsense.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> Well agree that stuff about U75 not be posted in there either? Obviously that would involve a certain amount of trust but really, what's the alternative?




who should we trust? 

the people who denied that this was happening (granted, they may at the same time have been trying to STOP it happening).
the people i considered friends who've been attacking me said forum?
the mods - who in many cases are the people on TG with the biggest grudges against Urban?


bit of a leap, really.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh come on, that was posted about four times.
> 
> so now you can see that personal details WERE being collected.- what's your response, since you denied this was happening?



I genuinely hadnt seen it, but then theres no way Im going to read 40+ pages of this thread.

I'll try and find the original thread and see what context it was in, if Ern genuinely is building eronal files on people that is out of order, though I still think he's just having a laugh.


----------



## Sue (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> who should we trust?
> 
> the people who denied that this was happening (granted, they may at the same time have been trying to STOP it happening).
> the people i considered friends who've been attacking me said forum?
> ...



But really, what's the alternative? That this goes on and on and on on here and over there and that there are mass bannings and God knows what else?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I'll try and find the original thread and see what context it was in, if Ern genuinely is building eronal files on people that is out of order, though I still think he's just having a laugh.



it's not fucking funny, belushi. and it's a betrayal of trust - photo handing details about a poster to ern isn't funny, even if it's for a 'laugh'.

it's somewhere on a spectrum between fucking pathetic and threatening


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm fed up of the casual misrepresentation on here of what's been going on at TTG. To an extent it's understandable, because when personal animosity is involved you always see the worst in people.
> 
> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here..



I think its this kind of response and the dumbing down attitude that fuck all has happened, which is the most damaging to this community....

How the hell can you down play it this way, its in balck and fucking white....

OR

Is this constant denial, yet another attempt at pathetic trolling or even worse has ern brainwashed you all.......


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm fed up of the casual misrepresentation on here of what's been going on at TTG. To an extent it's understandable, because when personal animosity is involved you always see the worst in people.
> 
> I would actually like to reiterate that the sum total of TTG's crimes is mucking about on here. Not a co-ordinated boardwar but a few people, mucking about. Think about all the people you've generously divided into good tollers and bad tollers ( the former to tut-tut, the latter to throw endless unjustified calumnies at  ), do you really think the former weren't enjoying TTG for the basic reason of it being a good message board. That the likes of myself, who has never been banned from here, has never had more than the odd run-in with the editor, could be bothered wasting my time with a board that was simply aimed at destroying  (how exactly?) this place?
> 
> ...



fucking fantastic post.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> But really, what's the alternative? That this goes on and on and on on here and over there and that there are mass bannings and God knows what else?



It really _is_ Israel Palestine isn't it


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I genuinely hadnt seen it, but then theres no way Im going to read 40+ pages of this thread.
> 
> I'll try and find the original thread and see what context it was in, if Ern genuinely is building eronal files on people that is out of order, though I still think he's just having a laugh.


It's not even a question of the existence of these legendary "files" though, is it?  The problem is that personal, private information is being exchanged about people that they clearly did not want spread around, things like phone numbers, home addresses, place of work, etc., just using a few examples posted up here.  Would you like it if people did that to you?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> But really, what's the alternative? That this goes on and on and on on here and over there and that there are mass bannings and God knows what else?




that i don't know. i know i thought TG stood a chance without Swarthy, Ern etc.

but judging by the behaviour of Kea and others, i no longer believe that to be the case.

the sad thing is the good people being forced to take sides, and the posters i'll miss because they decided they'd rather stick with a board containing some fucking vile elements that go unchecked rather than one where despite its flaws, things are normally tackled head on


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> fucking fantastic post.




not particularly, cheg, no.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's not fucking funny, belushi. and it's a betrayal of trust - photo handing details about a poster to ern isn't funny, even if it's for a 'laugh'.
> 
> it's somewhere on a spectrum between fucking pathetic and threatening



I never said it was funny   and dont forget that far worse things were done to Ern. Of course no one on here knew anything about that did they.


----------



## Top Dog (Feb 1, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I had not actually intended to post again, but having seen the direction this thread was heading down I felt it necessary to do so.
> 
> Cheers, I liked it here for the most part.


Good post Sorry. Like you I mostly try to keep out of the run ins and the flame wars on any BBs i post on.

This whole bileous thread has left me with a very sour taste of U75. Now thats definitely *not* condoning or encouraging any of the shit thats gone on at TTG. But im seeing lots of people whose posts i enjoy reading and have learned a lot from in the past, walking out of here because of the sanctimony and hypocracy of more than a few others. 

PC's last few posts have gone unanswered in the main... why?

I dont know many of you outside of P&P irl, but if you're arguing that the TG is a clique, then i'd also urge the mods and the quaffers here to hold a mirror up to themselves and take a long look at how they appear to some of us that have never met you irl, at the socials or elsewhere. How different are you really?

This is depressing stuff to read and atm im really not sure how long i'll be hanging around here either


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I never said it was funny   and dont forget that far worse things were done to Ern. Of course no one on here knew anything about that did they.




1) i certainly don't.
2) it could be argued he brought it on himself. Did Pie Eye?

invalid comparison, fuck off.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I genuinely hadnt seen it, but then theres no way Im going to read 40+ pages of this thread.
> 
> I'll try and find the original thread and see what context it was in, if Ern genuinely is building eronal files on people that is out of order, though I still think he's just having a laugh.



Where the fuck is the humour in that?

I havent been personally in the line of fire, but what a fucking blase attitude you have.......have you been brainwashed too???

This is getting right on my tits, but me thinks that is the intention.....


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> This is depressing stuff to read and atm im really not sure how long i'll be hanging around here either




did you have your personal details passed around? were you slagged off at length in a forum which TG posters consistently denied existed?

come back to me and tell me your feelings on the matter when that's happened, eh?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

> Did Pie Eye?



But no one posted any of Pie Eyes personal details on TG, all they did was post a picture of her house which you had already posted on here.

I agreed with you it was uneccesary, but I dont think it in anyway qualifies as posting up her personal details.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> not particularly, cheg, no.



well it summed up how I feel quite succinctly so we'll have to disagree    as per....


----------



## J77 (Feb 1, 2006)

Why not draw a line, with bans and the like?

You either go there or here.

Let things calm down and see what happens.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> 1) i certainly don't.
> 2) it could be argued he brought it on himself. Did Pie Eye?
> 
> invalid comparison, fuck off.


In fairness, I seem to remember a brief fashion among a few here for passing about ern's personal details (including his real name and his place of work).  Totally unneccesary and equally as out of order as some of the shit that's gone on at TTG recently, IMO.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> What that means is they’d have been fully aware of the development and workings of TTG. Whilst it may have started as a bit of fucking about and with maybe even a majority of posters venting a bit of spleen about what they were dissatisfied with on U75, it very quickly moved on. We wanted – and want – the boards to be serious and don’t want them defined by any past history or gripes with U75.
> 
> Of course, with 40 odd people in the Junta, there isn’t unanimity about everything. Some discussions were heated and some decisions needed revisiting. I’m giving fuck all away to say that some of us found it harder to move on from our previous histories with U75 than did others. That meant that not only were some things posted that shouldn’t have been, it also meant that some people who should have respected decisions we’d arrived at didn’t do so.


That's fairly honest comapred to some of the other posts here at least, but I have to say that what's been missing on this thread is any kind of apology from any TGers for having allowed the bad stuff to go on and for not being honest about it.

And the whole outrage over the alleged 'hacking' is bullshit - I'm sure it wasn't hacked - you can't keep a forum with 40 members secret - usernames and passwords stray for whatever reason, people leave their accounts open. So stop trying to pretend that a crime has being committed unless there is proof of that. The point right now for the TG is, it's no longer secret, you can't expect it to remain secret in the future - so what are you going to do about that? Are you going to continue to allow threads on trolling urban? Is the modding going to be stricter? 
Seems to me there has to be some change of attitude or strategy over there if trust is to be rebuilt.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't believe this stuff about "hacking". From what I know of the situation it's very unlikely that any such thing occurred. And I'm not exactly computer illiterate. I hear people complain about being "hacked" all the time, like that occurs by magic somehow, and it never turns out to be actual intrusion. It's all people giving their passwords to the wrong people, or not logging out, or letting someone register who they shouldn't have, or picking really obvious passwords etc etc, all frequently combined with forgetting that such a thing ever happened.



oh how believable that you don't know how this info was obtained! yes we've all really swallowed that one fridgie.....loving the smokescreens by the way! keep it up and we can add it all to the list off TG crimes! talking.about people.

ooo mother!


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> That's fairly honest comapred to some of the other posts here at least, but I have to say that what's been missing on this thread is any kind of apology from any TGers for having allowed the bad stuff to go on and for not being honest about it.
> 
> And the whole outrage over the alleged 'hacking' is bullshit - I'm sure it wasn't hacked - you can't keep a forum with 40 members secret - usernames and passwords stray for whatever reason, people leave their accounts open. So stop trying to pretend that a crime has being committed unless there is proof of that. The point right now for the TG is, it's no longer secret, you can't expect it to remain secret in the future - so what are you going to do about that? Are you going to continue to allow threads on trolling urban? Is the modding going to be stricter?
> Seems to me there has to be some change of attitude or strategy over there if trust is to be rebuilt.



now THAT'S a good post.

a lot of it is what i've been trying to say but i'm too angry to be so clear.


----------



## Top Dog (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> did you have your personal details passed around? were you slagged off at length in a forum which TG posters consistently denied existed?
> 
> come back to me and tell me your feelings on the matter when that's happened, eh?


well, ollie, havent you had a rather long thread on TTG so that you can vent your spleen about that and others have responded to that, have they not? Ive already said above that i dont condone some of the behaviour at the TG

But hey, why not lets continue going round and round, spewing out the ammunition so that more members jump ship.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Why not draw a line, with bans and the like?



What, like a sort of security wall?

Sorry I couldn't resist


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> oh how believable that you don't know how this info was obtained! yes we've all really swallowed that one fridgie.....loving the smokescreens by the way! keep it up and we can add it all to the list off TG crimes! talking.about people.
> 
> ooo mother!



cheg - i give up. keep pushing it back at us and ignoring the real issue.

not interested in your bullshit and excuses any more. sorry


----------



## Sue (Feb 1, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Why not draw a line, with bans and the like?
> 
> You either go there or here.
> 
> Let things calm down and see what happens.



Seems we're going for the 'another 1100 posts where everyone hates everyone else' option instead.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> But hey, why not lets continue going round and round, spewing out the ammunition so that more members jump ship.



i don't want any of the people who've left to leave. but if they prefer to do that rather than face the fair criticisms here, that's their call.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> cheg - i give up. keep pushing it back at us and ignoring the real issue.
> 
> not interested in your bullshit and excuses any more. sorry



dub you're unable to see the lies and hypocrisy of the key people on this board. I'm sorry you've taken that stance.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> dub you're unable to see the lies and hypocrisy of the key people on this board. I'm sorry you've taken that stance.




do you know what, i don't give a fuck. there's no secret forum on here with my friends slagging me off, abusing my trust, passing around details.

that's my stance.


----------



## J77 (Feb 1, 2006)

Sue said:
			
		

> Seems we're going for the 'another 1100 posts where everyone hates everyone else' option instead.


Well it would stop the tennis.

I don't have much respect for what they've done there - not the files thing but the whole blatant copy of forums/threads. Something else which struck me was that a lot of the people in their court were the same always bitching about access over here, eg. the locked radio forums some time back. Hypocrites.


----------



## Top Dog (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i don't want any of the people who've left to leave. but if they prefer to do that rather than face the fair criticisms here, that's their call.


horseshit.

Have you selectively not read various TGers comments on their disaproval of some of the antics on there? You choose to emphasise the negative ones, because it suits you.

Fair enough. Leave we will


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

past caring said:
			
		

> I’ll play along, for the moment, with the editor's assertion that we’ve a mole in the Junta. Let’s take a look at what that means – because it’s instructive.
> 
> It means that the mole had access to absolutely _everything_ of any import – they wouldn’t have had access to the admin forums, but nothing other than stuff of a technical nature has been discussed in those. They’d have had access to “the Files” and they’ve had access to the Junta forum – where decisions on policy and bannings are made. In fact, they’d have had the opportunity to participate fully in those discussions – and almost certainly did.
> 
> ...


OK: At last a fair TG junta post on this
From what you say, this was something that happened right at the start of TG, and was eventually stopped.
but TRY and see the other point of view. collecting info secretly on U75 posters is STILL not on; would you like it if it happened to you?
and how is editor to know HOW full or accurate a picture the 'mole' has presented to him?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> dub you're unable to see the lies and hypocrisy of the key people on this board. I'm sorry you've taken that stance.


jeepers, what lies and what hypocrisy?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> horseshit.
> 
> Have you selectively not read various TGers comments on their disaproval of some of the antics on there? You choose to emphasise the negative ones, because it suits you.
> 
> Fair enough. Leave we will




like i said before, i know full well the best efforts of some posters to stop this stuff. but it didnt' work. and meanwhile on here they denied it.

i don't care if 5000 posts on TG are innocent. it's the fraction that AREN'T innocent i care about. that's not a hard concept to grasp, is it?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> From what you say, this was something that happened right at the start of TG, and was eventually stopped.




by eventually, read "since this blew up". not before.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

The thing is, what what I can gather it didn't just "happen" on the board, it was pursued by people who are moderators. Which is really not on. That's people _in charge_, egging on another on to troll another board and asking one another for personal information on people. That's really quite serious.

It's not the only issue involved, but it is a real issue. Not something that happened a long time ago and we stopped it anyway.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> jeepers, what lies and what hypocrisy?



'ooo we don't know where this information came from, look at the faq's - derailed threads will be binned accept the show trial ones, we never talk about people on the boards down the pub, our mates will only ever get repeat lame bannings (pk), people we don't like will be treated with very quickly, they're swapping everyones details a thousand times over, we've got no secret forums here! everyone we don't like has ernies IP address, we've never hacked nuffink gov.

bullshit after bullshit after bullshit after bullshit.

 

I could go on but I can't be arsed.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> by eventually, read "since this blew up". not before.


I don't think either of us can pinpoint precisely when...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 'ooo we don't know where this information came from, look at the faq's - derailed threads will be binned accept the show trial ones, we never talk about people on the boards down the pub, our mates will only ever get repeat lame bannings (pk), people we don't like will be treated with very quickly, they're swapping everyones details a thousand times over, we've got no secret forums here! everyone we don't like has ernies IP address, we've never hacked nuffink gov.


Oh, Christ, it's the "it's not fair we're being picked on" line, Which, as I observed some pages back, always follows on from "We were only having a larf, stop complaining".


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I don't think either of us can pinpoint precisely when...




i can, because i've been told in PM by TG posters.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 'ooo we don't know where this information came from, look at the faq's - derailed threads will be binned accept the show trial ones, we never talk about people on the boards down the pub, our mates will only ever get repeat lame bannings (pk), people we don't like will be treated with very quickly, they're swapping everyones details a thousand times over, we've got no secret forums here! everyone we don't like has ernies IP address, we've never hacked nuffink gov.
> 
> bullshit after bullshit after bullshit after bullshit.
> 
> ...


errmmm.....points,
1) be REALLY careful when you talk about hacking; it's a criminal offence, and I personally would NEVER accuse anyone, anywhere of a crime without cast-iron proof. also editor has wrong skillset for a hacker. you KNOW this stuff - use yer brains.
2) editor has said all along he has a mole
3) he's always said there's a mods forum. it goes with the software and can't be removed, IIRC
4) of course people get talked about down the pub - I've talked about YOU down the pub, at some point in the past! and prolly vice versa. what do you talk about down the oub, kierkegaard?
the rest don't make much sense.
one Q tho'; if the roles were reversed, would you reveal your mole? I wouldn't.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 'ooo we don't know where this information came from, look at the faq's - derailed threads will be binned accept the show trial ones, we never talk about people on the boards down the pub, our mates will only ever get repeat lame bannings (pk), people we don't like will be treated with very quickly, they're swapping everyones details a thousand times over, we've got no secret forums here! everyone we don't like has ernies IP address, we've never hacked nuffink gov.
> 
> bullshit after bullshit after bullshit after bullshit.
> 
> ...




and yet you still fail to admit

1) repeatedly denying the existence of The Files
2) that things at TG were unacceptable
3) that trusts were abused, personal details swapped, innocent posters dragged in.


----------



## tarannau (Feb 1, 2006)

With respect Chegs, none of that - most of which seems exagerated at the very least- excuses what's been going on TG. No moderators over here have been advocating a board war, been giving tips how to troll, been setting up secret forum to facilitate backbiting. The list goes on. 

In any case, if you've all these objections about the running of u75, why stay. Even better, don't get so fixated about the place that you start secret forums on tg to slag off things and people off over here. 

And here's another suggestion. If you really are that opposed to aspects of u75's management, then it's probably not a wise idea to contribute to secretive practices and a board hierachy that's far more distasteful, divisive and downright nasty than has ever existed here. Makes you look like a ginormous hypocrite with conveniently shifting morals to say the least.

I'm happy for TG and U75 members to exist in peace, but you attempting to claim the moral high ground after those shenanigans is laughable.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

this is the astonishing thing, tarannau. all the biggest axe-gringers at TG are there because of issues with how Urban is run.

and yet EVERYTHING at TG seems to be run much  much more restrictively - hierarchies, gulags etc.

rank. fucking. hypocrisy


----------



## J77 (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> rank. fucking. hypocrisy


Yep - pretty infantile.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Cheg - answer me this, if you're still here.

I posted a pic of Pie Eye's family home to show the snow that fell there. that pic got copied to the secret forums of TG and used as a stick to beat her and me with, and led to her feeling very upset and angry and - following Firky's claims - a little worried.

this will now directly affect how i post, and her probably, and i imagine others too.

is it fair that TG's pathetic condoning of The Files leads innocent posters to feel unsure about what they post?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Feb 1, 2006)

This thread is doing my eyes in.

I am going on my cross trainer for an hour.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 'ooo we don't know where this information came from, look at the faq's - derailed threads will be binned accept the show trial ones, we never talk about people on the boards down the pub, our mates will only ever get repeat lame bannings (pk), people we don't like will be treated with very quickly, they're swapping everyones details a thousand times over, we've got no secret forums here! everyone we don't like has ernies IP address, we've never hacked nuffink gov.
> 
> bullshit after bullshit after bullshit after bullshit.
> 
> ...



and still the one sided bullshit carries on.  Pk got banned.  Whats happened to ern?  Is he still a mod?  If so why?  Get a spine cheg.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> This thread is doing my eyes in.
> 
> I am going on my cross trainer for an hour.



Do half an hour for me mate, im stuck fast


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> this is the astonishing thing, tarannau. all the biggest axe-gringers at TG are there because of issues with how Urban is run.
> 
> and yet EVERYTHING at TG seems to be run much  much more restrictively - hierarchies, gulags etc.
> 
> rank. fucking. hypocrisy



dictatorship of the proletariat in action innit


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> this is the astonishing thing, tarannau. all the biggest axe-gringers at TG are there because of issues with how Urban is run.
> 
> and yet EVERYTHING at TG seems to be run much  much more restrictively - hierarchies, gulags etc.



Aye, that's the main reason stopping me registering. Mods should be as impartial and removed as possible. They are keepers of the peace, not rulers. Just from browsing the forums at TG (on someone else's account - I posted nothing) I got an impression of hierarchy and power games. A shame, because there are interesting threads.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> Cheg - answer me this, if you're still here.
> 
> I posted a pic of Pie Eye's family home to show the snow that fell there. that pic got copied to the secret forums of TG and used as a stick to beat her and me with, and led to her feeling very upset and angry and - following Firky's claims - a little worried.
> 
> ...



no it's not. and the files no longer exist. they were a mistake to carry on. but cathartic for some.

the pie eye thing was wrong.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> and still the one sided bullshit carries on.  Pk got banned.  Whats happened to ern?  Is he still a mod?  If so why?  Get a spine cheg.



48 hours? how many times has he been banned? I thought repeat offenders got perm banned?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no it's not. and the files no longer exist. they were a mistake to carry on. but cathartic for some.
> 
> the pie eye thing was wrong.




so surely you can see why people are upset? and you know that The Files only got stopped in the last couple of days, after this outcry.

why did it take outside interference to make you all decide to get rid of something a lot of you claim you were against?

and why did they get set up in the first place?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 48 hours? how many times has he been banned? I thought repeat offenders got perm banned?




well ern got away with it for years.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 48 hours? how many times has he been banned? I thought repeat offenders got perm banned?



Still igoring the point I see.  You're a spineless hypocrite cheg.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 48 hours? how many times has he been banned? I thought repeat offenders got perm banned?




also, the things ern has said and done on TG would have got anyone banned from here in an instant - but Ern is pretty much unbannable isn't he?

actually, answer me that:

if the TG junta decided to, COULD ern actually be banned from TG?


----------



## J77 (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> no it's not. and the files no longer exist. they were a mistake to carry on. but cathartic for some.


What you burn them?

If they're posts someone with not much to do irl will probably hang onto them.

Just having ideas of such thing just shows hat a cuntdom is being run.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so surely you can see why people are upset? and you know that The Files only got stopped in the last couple of days, after this outcry.
> 
> why did it take outside interference to make you all decide to get rid of something a lot of you claim you were against?
> 
> and why did they get set up in the first place?



I can see why people are upset. I think its irresponsible of people here to be fanning this upset (mostly the moderators) by continuing this thread. Most people were already trying to get rid of the Files pre-pk shit stirring. It would have happened anyway and there were many discussions about it.

I've already explained why - they were cathartic and allowed posters to out their grievances in a mostly light hearted manner. They were necessary or the bitching about urban threads might have dominated the public forums
and that was explicitily what we didn't want to happen.


----------



## J77 (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> if the TG junta decided to, COULD ern actually be banned from TG?


Perhaps they could canonise him?


----------



## Hollis (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> - they were cathartic and allowed posters to out their grievances in a mostly light hearted manner.



Christ - why don't you have an Away Day?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

There seems no possibility of peaceful co-existence between a bulletin board and another bulletin board consisting largely of disgruntled members of the first bulletin board, and I see no end to the present woes unless a new and unexpected strategy is adopted.  May I suggest that you guys ought to read some Sun Tzu and Clausewitz?  If you want to win any kind of conflict, you must first understand the *reasons* behind it, and secondly you must grasp your enemy’s *aims.*  Now, why does TG exist?  Obviously enough, it is Ernesto’s Revenge, and a very effective revenge it has proved.  I think we can safely say that TG would not exist were it not for this motivating factor.

Now, what does Ernesto want?  Revenge, certainly, in the short term.  But his ultimate desire, his primary motivation, is to be able to perform on the Internet in front of the widest possible audience.  That desire can best be fulfilled through participation in U75, *not* TG.  Furthermore, I and many others would argue that Ernesto was in fact the most entertaining poster on U75.  It would therefore seem to be of mutual benefit if he could be persuaded to rejoin this site.

And that is what I suggest should be done.  Make peace with Ernesto.  If that could be achieved--and certainly it will be a delicate task, calling for all kinds of subtle and intricate negotiating skills, and much swallowing of pride on both sides--I believe that TG would simply be left to wither on the vine and twist in the wind.  The other posters would soon be flocking back, and could be admitted or not at the pleasure of the Mods.  It would also rank as the finest master-stroke of diplomacy in all Internet history.  Total victory, *without a fight!*  That’s what you want to aim at.  Anyway, that is my view.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> also, the things ern has said and done on TG would have got anyone banned from here in an instant - but Ern is pretty much unbannable isn't he?
> 
> actually, answer me that:
> 
> if the TG junta decided to, COULD ern actually be banned from TG?



yes of course he could be. 

Anyway this is extremely one-sided and I've no desire to be tried by a kangaroo court of the myopic and bloodthirsty.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Christ - why don't you have an Away Day?



would have been easier!


----------



## spring-peeper (Feb 1, 2006)

Hi there,

I'm glad that I've been registered when I did.

I was here to see pbman leave, JC2 and other Americans browbeaten, the "night gang" numbers decrease and see people I have known and loved have being forced to defend their new board.

I would have wondered what had happened and why if I'd registered in a month or two from now.

One of the previous boards I was on had/have an very strong hatred of me - they post my pms, they chase me around the internet copy-and-pasting my posts onto their site(s) for ridicule, and even launched a board war against the one board I truly loved - this one.  

You reap what you sow - and this applies to this board as well as me.

Sorry that this happened, I really loved the U75 of old.  That place no longer exists. 

Until we met again, peace, love and harmony

triplem


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> 48 hours? how many times has he been banned? I thought repeat offenders got perm banned?


he was banned ONCE before, yonks ago.


----------



## kakuma (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There seems no possibility of peaceful co-existence between a bulletin board and another bulletin board consisting largely of disgruntled members of the first bulletin board, and I see no end to the present woes unless a new and unexpected strategy is adopted.  May I suggest that you guys ought to read some Sun Tzu and Clausewitz?  If you want to win any kind of conflict, you must first understand the *reasons* behind it, and secondly you must grasp your enemy’s *aims.*  Now, why does TG exist?  Obviously enough, it is Ernesto’s Revenge, and a very effective revenge it has proved.  I think we can safely say that TG would not exist were it not for this motivating factor.
> 
> Now, what does Ernesto want?  Revenge, certainly, in the short term.  But his ultimate desire, his primary motivation, is to be able to perform on the Internet in front of the widest possible audience.  That desire can best be fulfilled through participation in U75, *not* TG.  Furthermore, I and many others would argue that Ernesto was in fact the most entertaining poster on U75.  It would therefore seem to be of mutual benefit if he could be persuaded to rejoin this site.
> 
> And that is what I suggest should be done.  Make peace with Ernesto.  If that could be achieved--and certainly it will be a delicate task, calling for all kinds of subtle and intricate negotiating skills, and much swallowing of pride on both sides--I believe that TG would simply be left to wither on the vine and twist in the wind.  The other posters would soon be flocking back, and could be admitted or not at the pleasure of the Mods.  It would also rank as the finest master-stroke of diplomacy in all Internet history.  Total victory, *without a fight!*  That’s what you want to aim at.  Anyway, that is my view.



this thread is pretty stupid

but that is the stupidest post on it

i'd like to buy you a drink


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Now, what does Ernesto want?  ...........



Such a plan has one major drawback. It would result with Ernie back on these boards, with all the bother for the mods that that would entail.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There seems no possibility of peaceful co-existence between a bulletin board and another bulletin board consisting largely of disgruntled members of the first bulletin board, and I see no end to the present woes unless a new and unexpected strategy is adopted.  May I suggest that you guys ought to read some Sun Tzu and Clausewitz?  If you want to win any kind of conflict, you must first understand the *reasons* behind it, and secondly you must grasp your enemy’s *aims.*  Now, why does TG exist?  Obviously enough, it is Ernesto’s Revenge, and a very effective revenge it has proved.  I think we can safely say that TG would not exist were it not for this motivating factor.
> 
> Now, what does Ernesto want?  Revenge, certainly, in the short term.  But his ultimate desire, his primary motivation, is to be able to perform on the Internet in front of the widest possible audience.  That desire can best be fulfilled through participation in U75, *not* TG.  Furthermore, I and many others would argue that Ernesto was in fact the most entertaining poster on U75.  It would therefore seem to be of mutual benefit if he could be persuaded to rejoin this site.
> 
> And that is what I suggest should be done.  Make peace with Ernesto.  If that could be achieved--and certainly it will be a delicate task, calling for all kinds of subtle and intricate negotiating skills, and much swallowing of pride on both sides--I believe that TG would simply be left to wither on the vine and twist in the wind.  The other posters would soon be flocking back, and could be admitted or not at the pleasure of the Mods.  It would also rank as the finest master-stroke of diplomacy in all Internet history.  Total victory, *without a fight!*  That’s what you want to aim at.  Anyway, that is my view.



Your first paragraph is spot on, but the rest is just stroking his ever increasing, inflated ego..

I think the boards are much better without him, espaecially as he is quickly turning into a nasty piece of work....  

This board, imo, doesnt need the likes of him or his cronies to survive or succeed, its already a success


----------



## fat hamster (Feb 1, 2006)

spring-peeper said:
			
		

> Hi there,
> 
> I'm glad that I've been registered when I did.
> 
> ...


ROTFLMFAO!!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

spring-peeper said:
			
		

> Hi there,
> 
> I'm glad that I've been registered when I did.
> 
> ...


the U75 of OLD???? how long were/are you registered????


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I can see why people are upset. I think its irresponsible of people here to be fanning this upset (mostly the moderators) by continuing this thread. Most people were already trying to get rid of the Files pre-pk shit stirring. It would have happened anyway and there were many discussions about it.



i don't give a fuck about the conduct of this thread - as a reaction, not an instigation, all bets are off. I don't care that some of you tried to get rid of  the files, the point is you didn't. not until this.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

fat hamster said:
			
		

> ROTFLMFAO!!




oh do fuck off.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes of course he could be.
> 
> Anyway this is extremely one-sided and I've no desire to be tried by a kangaroo court of the myopic and bloodthirsty.


cheg, answer me TWO questions. do you see why I feel I have trust issues with some people now? and am afraid of losing friends over this?


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> cheg, answer me TWO questions. do you see why I feel I have trust issues with some people now? and am afraid of losing friends over this?



yes I do see that jezza and its sad and I really hope you don't lose friends over it - not real ones you won't!


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

haylz said:
			
		

> Your first paragraph is spot on, but the rest is just stroking his ever increasing, inflated ego..
> 
> I think the boards are much better without him, espaecially as he is quickly turning into a nasty piece of work....
> 
> This board, imo, doesnt need the likes of him or his cronies to survive or succeed, its already a success



What I suggest is that he should be *separated* from those you call his "cronies."  This would not, in my estimation, be very difficult: they are unwitting pawns in the admirably deep game he is playing.  Never forget that, like you and I, Ernesto is a *Welshman.*  You know what that means.  And again, if you think he is "turning into a nasty piece of work," you must ask *why* this is so.  Is it not the direct result of his bitterness at being excluded from U75?  Remove the *cause* and you eliminate the *effect.*  It all seems perfectly simple to me.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> yes I do see that jezza and its sad and I really hope you don't lose friends over it - not real ones you won't!




cheg.

however this thread has gone, do you concede that it is a REACTION to a state of affairs at TG?

i didn't start The Files. nor did Pie Eye. or The Editor. Or Shirl. so why do you insist on trying to attack our conduct on this thread as if THIS is the most important matter?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

fuck off dwyer


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> And again, if you think he is "turning into a nasty piece of work," you must ask *why* this is so.  Is it not the direct result of his bitterness at being excluded from U75?  Remove the *cause* and you eliminate the *effect.*  It all seems perfectly simple to me.



Ernie had already turned into a nasty piece of work long, long before he was excluded from Urban.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> fuck off dwyer



Right, fine, carry on just as you are then.  You're obviously having such great fun, I wouldn't want to spoil it.  Sorry I spoke.  Jesus.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

Lock&Light said:
			
		

> Ernie had already turned into a nasty piece of work long, long before he was excluded from Urban.



He was just taking the piss before.  Now he's serious.  Which do you prefer?


----------



## Lock&Light (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He was just taking the piss before.  Now he's serious.  Which do you prefer?



My opinion clearly differs from yours.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> He was just taking the piss before. Now he's serious. Which do you prefer?



How would you know that?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Right, fine, carry on just as you are then.  You're obviously having such great fun, I wouldn't want to spoil it.  Sorry I spoke.
> Jesus?


 Yes?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 1, 2006)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> How would you know that?



What?


----------



## Oxpecker (Feb 1, 2006)

Do you actually mean "hacking"? Or are you getting confused with the light-hearted attempt to "infiltrate" a Respect bulletin board? I only ask because I can't recall any suggestion that TTG members hack into anything.




			
				Sesquipedalian said:
			
		

> There are comments on the open forums about hacking certain sites for fun.
> (Even i,as a novice to bulletin boards,have been able to read that.)
> It's not an accusation it's a fact.
> 
> ...


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> cheg.
> 
> however this thread has gone, do you concede that it is a REACTION to a state of affairs at TG?
> 
> i didn't start The Files. nor did Pie Eye. or The Editor. Or Shirl. so why do you insist on trying to attack our conduct on this thread as if THIS is the most important matter?




honestly dub I've said about as much as I intend to. I'm sorry its got to this stage but maybe after the dusts settled a bit people might have calmed down a bit and got things in perpsective.

no one died. no one is ill and no one has come to any physical harm. Theres been a fair bit of emotional upset and that is sad and not desirable but these things happen in life. I'm sure once a bit of perpsective has been gained things might seem a bit less serious.

I went over to tollinggang because I was sick of a lot of things on urban and the way the politics has become diluted and drifted rightwards. Libcom I find too theoretical. I still look on these boards and quite a few of the posters here fondly.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What I suggest is that he should be *separated* from those you call his "cronies."  This would not, in my estimation, be very difficult: they are unwitting pawns in the admirably deep game he is playing.  Never forget that, like you and I, Ernesto is a *Welshman.*  You know what that means.  And again, if you think he is "turning into a nasty piece of work," you must ask *why* this is so.  Is it not the direct result of his bitterness at being excluded from U75?  Remove the *cause* and you eliminate the *effect.*  It all seems perfectly simple to me.



I dont think there is anything *admirable* about his deep game playing, its sad.....

He was a nuisance on this board and had more than his fair share of chances, his ego took over, and he got the boot, big deal, does that justify his bitterness and all this shit that is being reaked.......No No and NO...

Ern is nothing without his yes men and it seems he has a few ie.. cronies.

Yes im welsh, what the fuck has that got to do with it


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion- you're clearly very angry, but I fear you are letting your hysteria get the better of you.

Your partner's house photo was posted. Wrong.

Chuck passed on wolfie's work phone number. Wrong.

The implication is that we've all busily been swapping personal details for the hell of it- as I explained yesterday, wrong.

People have said nasty things about a few posters on here, in preivate forums not open to the public.

Is that the sum total of the allegations against TTG? Do I have the charge sheet right?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

no steeplejack, there are additional charges of the admin and mods of ttg secretly and in opposition to their "mission statement" planning and laughing about trolling, wind ups, and personal attacks on urban75 and u75 members.


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

okay, adding that to the charge sheet, anything else?


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What I suggest is that he should be *separated* from those you call his "cronies."  This would not, in my estimation, be very difficult: they are unwitting pawns in the admirably deep game he is playing.  Never forget that, like you and I, Ernesto *is a *Welshman.*  You know what that means.  *And again, if you think he is "turning into a nasty piece of work," you must ask *why* this is so.  Is it not the direct result of his bitterness at being excluded from U75?  Remove the *cause* and you eliminate the *effect.*  It all seems perfectly simple to me.



phil i let it pass last time - what do you mean by the bit in bold please?


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> phil i let it pass last time - what do you mean by the bit in bold please?



I know, he said it like im meant to get it , i dont


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> okay, adding that to the charge sheet, anything else?




isn't that already quite a lot? 

add the denials of these things happening.


----------



## ecadre (Feb 1, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Why not draw a line, with bans and the like?
> 
> You either go there or here.



er, in a word, no.




			
				J77 said:
			
		

> Let things calm down and see what happens.



So you suggest calming things own by a campaign of systematic bannings?

I can't think of ANYONE in the TG Junta who wants a board war, it's all very, very tedious.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 1, 2006)

Ernestolynch ate my hamster.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> phil i let it pass last time - what do you mean by the bit in bold please?



I triple dare you to call him a racist


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

ecadre said:
			
		

> I can't think of ANYONE in the TG Junta who wants a board war, it's all very, very tedious.




you're a fucking liar. numerous examples of threads aimed at organising trolling exist and have been referred to on here.

are you denying this?


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> isn't that already quite a lot?
> 
> add the denials of these things happening.



Who 'denied' that the Files existed, or that such things hadn't happened? I asked someone to show me evidence of this yesterday, and none was forthcoming.


----------



## Callie (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> isn't that already quite a lot?
> 
> add the denials of these things happening.




I think some of those denials were because people genuinely hadn't seen the threads?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 1, 2006)

haylz said:
			
		

> I know, he said it like im meant to get it , i dont



I think you are meant to react so he can watch and enjoy...which makes him a bit of a....probably best to ignore him.

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Who 'denied' that the Files existed, or that such things hadn't happened? I asked someone to show me evidence of this yesterday, and none was forthcoming.




it happened on this thread, it's been happening for weeks. you know it, i know it, the deniers know it. none having Bristle's infinite patience, i'm not going trawling through the threads looking for it, because even if i do you'll say "ah, but that's just one poster" etc.

ad nauseam.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Callie said:
			
		

> I think some of those denials were because people genuinely hadn't seen the threads?




but people I KNOW had seen the threads denied they existed on these boards.


----------



## ecadre (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Dubversion- you're clearly very angry, but I fear you are letting your hysteria get the better of you.
> 
> Your partner's house photo was posted. Wrong.
> 
> ...



Indeed!

Personally I couldn't give a toss who anyone is in "real" life.  There is no secret investigation or files aiming at uncovering this or that person.  The level of self-righteous paranoia here is ridiculous.


----------



## Hollis (Feb 1, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> There seems no possibility of peaceful co-existence between a bulletin board and another bulletin board consisting largely of disgruntled members of the first bulletin board, and I see no end to the present woes unless a new and unexpected strategy is adopted.  May I suggest that you guys ought to read some Sun Tzu and Clausewitz?  If you want to win any kind of conflict, you must first understand the *reasons* behind it, and secondly you must grasp your enemy’s *aims.*  Now, why does TG exist?  Obviously enough, it is Ernesto’s Revenge, and a very effective revenge it has proved.  I think we can safely say that TG would not exist were it not for this motivating factor.
> 
> Now, what does Ernesto want?  Revenge, certainly, in the short term.  But his ultimate desire, his primary motivation, is to be able to perform on the Internet in front of the widest possible audience.  That desire can best be fulfilled through participation in U75, *not* TG.  Furthermore, I and many others would argue that Ernesto was in fact the most entertaining poster on U75.  It would therefore seem to be of mutual benefit if he could be persuaded to rejoin this site.
> 
> And that is what I suggest should be done.  Make peace with Ernesto.  If that could be achieved--and certainly it will be a delicate task, calling for all kinds of subtle and intricate negotiating skills, and much swallowing of pride on both sides--I believe that TG would simply be left to wither on the vine and twist in the wind.  The other posters would soon be flocking back, and could be admitted or not at the pleasure of the Mods.  It would also rank as the finest master-stroke of diplomacy in all Internet history.  Total victory, *without a fight!*  That’s what you want to aim at.  Anyway, that is my view.


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it happened on this thread, it's been happening for weeks. you know it, i know it, the deniers know it. none having Bristle's infinite patience, i'm not going trawling through the threads looking for it, because even if i do you'll say "ah, but that's just one poster" etc.
> 
> ad nauseam.



So- just to be clear- you don't have any evidence of this?

Having ground my way through the soggy and sodden quagmire of this thread, I can't find a single junta member 'denying' that such took place.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

ecadre said:
			
		

> Indeed!
> 
> Personally I couldn't give a toss who anyone is in "real" life.  There is no secret investigation or files aiming at uncovering this or that person.  The level of self-righteous paranoia here is ridiculous.




if that's the case, why did Ern ask Photo for a poster's personal details, which Photo then supplied?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> So- just to be clear- you don't have any evidence of this?



if you mean, can i point to a specific post, no, no i don't,

which changes nothing. especially since even when we do quote specific posts you say "Oh, i missed that one" or "oh, that's just one poster"


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I triple dare you to call him a racist



I think utter twat will suffice for now


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> So- just to be clear- you don't have any evidence of this?
> 
> Having ground my way through the soggy and sodden quagmire of this thread, I can't find a single junta member 'denying' that such took place.



I think deny is the wrong word, its justify, trivialise, excuse............


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

dubversion said:
			
		

> if you mean, can i point to a specific post, no, no i don't,
> 
> which changes nothing. especially since even when we do quote specific posts you say "Oh, i missed that one" or "oh, that's just one poster"



I haven't used either phrase as a matter of fact, dubversion.

So what you're saying is- "I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts", huh?

many posters- myself included- concede that what happened with the posting of the house pic was wrong, and, as it was directly related to you, you have every right to be angry.

best not undermine your case with a mouthful of evidence free froth though, no?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 1, 2006)

dwyer, stop stirring the pot please


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> I haven't used either phrase as a matter of fact, dubversion.
> 
> So what you're saying is- "I'm right, don't confuse me with the facts", huh?
> 
> ...




it's not just about the house, SJ, as we've explained.

it's about wolfie's phone number, Garf's details, a long-denied secret forum for the sole purpose of abusing Urban, etc etc etc.

playing word games isn't fooling anyone. and while most of you refuse to actually engage with what has been incontrovertibly proven to have taken place (instead prevaricating, deflecting and trivialising) you are allying yourself to what took place, where in fact the only reasonable thing to do is to distance yourself from it.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 1, 2006)

Well, if it's true 'the files' are now closed, then I guess that's progress, and perhaps an implied admission of guilt. I know people here are upset but that's probably the best you can hope for. Doesn't seem particularly worth continuing the arguments - though that was probably true long before this point...


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's about wolfie's phone number, Garf's details,



I never saw either of those two things....


----------



## ecadre (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> if that's the case, why did Ern ask Photo for a poster's personal details, which Photo then supplied?




Something troubling you then Dub?

Do you see visions of Ern's U75 ghost haunting you, Banquo-like, demanding retribution?

Sorry, it's all in your head


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i (instead prevaricating, deflecting and trivialising)



You had to go one better than me, didnt you


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I never saw either of those two things....




so what?


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> Well, if it's true 'the files' are now closed, ...



the files are definitely closed.


----------



## ddraig (Feb 1, 2006)

haylz said:
			
		

> I think utter twat will suffice for now



i was givin him a chance. is he not Welsh?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

ecadre said:
			
		

> Something troubling you then Dub?
> 
> Do you see visions of Ern's U75 ghost haunting you, Banquo-like, demanding retribution?
> 
> Sorry, it's all in your head





so you deny that Ern asked for Garf's details? or are you again resorting to sarcasm to avoid answering a direct question because you too are a spineless cunt who won't stand by their actions, or inactions.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so what?



you state them as fact. 'This definitely happened'...well I've no idea on what thread or when....


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> the files are definitely closed.



and why should we believe that? and how do we know something won't spring up in its place? and why did it take an outcry here to make it happen instead of the decent posters on TG actually getting it done themselves?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> you state them as fact. 'This definitely happened'...well I've no idea on what thread or when....




the posts have been shown here, they've been pointed out to you. are you now going to start denying them again?


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> 1.it's not just about the house, SJ, as we've explained.
> 
> 2. it's about wolfie's phone number, Garf's details, a long-denied secret forum for the sole purpose of abusing Urban, etc etc etc.
> 
> 3. playing word games isn't fooling anyone. and while most of you refuse to actually engage with what has been incontrovertibly proven to have taken place (instead prevaricating, deflecting and trivialising) you are allying yourself to what took place, where in fact the only reasonable thing to do is to distance yourself from it.



1. I'm well aware of that.

2. Untrue. You have been presented with a partially selected view of the 'secret' forums. The purpose of the fourm (for the umpteenth time) is not there simply to 'abuse urban', or to pointlessly share the personal fdetails of well known individuals from here. Can't you see the paranoia this is creating? Shirl (wrongly) thinks we know where she lives. Mrs M reads the half truths and rubbish here and suspects us of organising an offline persecution campaign against her & her family. *NO WE FUCKING HAVEN'T*

3. I'm not playing 'word games' at all. And I'm not shirking from anything that has taken place. When i ask politely for the evidence of what has allegedly 'taken place' on this thread, you seem curiously reluctant to provide it.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

ddraig said:
			
		

> i was givin him a chance. is he not Welsh?



Dont know mate, i thought so, but dont get the point he was trying to make.

Probably just shit stirring like Louis macniece inferred....


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> The purpose of the fourm (for the umpteenth time) is not there simply to 'abuse urban', or to pointlessly share the personal fdetails of well known individuals from here.



please could you tell me the other purposes of the secret forum that was called the Files.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so you deny that Ern asked for Garf's details? or are you again resorting to sarcasm to avoid answering a direct question because you too are a spineless cunt who won't stand by their actions, or inactions.



as you remember 'the files' were a long running joke on here started by ern - everyone thought it was funny - there was a thread where ern asked people to say a little bit about themselves, their job etc and he would guess their race & class - it was a massive thread that loads of people really enjoyed - I don't remember this outrage and bollocks then. 

People wilfully told him loads about themselves.....


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> please could you tell me the other purposes of the secret forum that was called the Files.



I've already told you dub - cathartic and to let off steam about grievances so those grievances weren't all over the general forums...


----------



## ecadre (Feb 1, 2006)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> 1. I'm well aware of that.
> 
> 2. Untrue. You have been presented with a partially selected view of the 'secret' forums. The purpose of the fourm (for the umpteenth time) is not there simply to 'abuse urban', or to pointlessly share the personal fdetails of well known individuals from here. Can't you see the paranoia this is creating? Shirl (wrongly) thinks we know where she lives. Mrs M reads the half truths and rubbish here and suspects us of organising an offline persecution campaign against her & her family. *NO WE FUCKING HAVEN'T*
> 
> 3. I'm not playing 'word games' at all. And I'm not shirking from anything that has taken place. When i ask politely for the evidence of what has allegedly 'taken place' on this thread, you seem curiously reluctant to provide it.



Curious indeed..........


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> as you remember 'the files' were a long running joke on here started by ern - everyone thought it was funny - there was a thread where ern asked people to say a little bit about themselves, their job etc and he would guess their race & class - it was a massive thread that loads of people really enjoyed - I don't remember this outrage and bollocks then.
> 
> People wilfully told him loads about themselves.....




so you believe if i gave somebody some information about you, that's the same as you doing it?

really?


cheg, enough. You of all people i gave the benefit of the doubt. But with your wordgames, prevarication, bullshit, lies and trivialising you're allying yourself with the worst of them and you can go fuck yourself.


same for the lot of you, to be honest.


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> please could you tell me the other purposes of the secret forum that was called the Files.



To discuss U75 related issues, as all of us came from there and had some things we wished to discuss that couldn't happen here.

When trolling was planned, people were regularly encouraged to desist.

Old threads, discussions, incidents were also mentioned.

Would you like to know anything else?


----------



## ecadre (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> please could you tell me the other purposes of the secret forum that was called the Files.



It was a piss-take, a joke, an amusing diversion, nothing to do with YOU (in the collective sense).  TG does not revolve around YOU.


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> . But with your *wordgames, prevarication, bullshit, lies and trivialising* you're allying yourself with the worst of them and you can go fuck yourself.
> 
> .



all the mods on here indulge in the above behaviour - in point of fact all humans do.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

For the record, the closest these boards have ever come to being closed permanently was right at the end of ernesto's long season of trolling, which had been ably aided and abetted by his little clique of troublemakers, almost all of whom now reside in the Junta or enjoy mod/admin status on the TG.

I'll never understand why he felt the need to dedicate so much time and energy into trying to undermine urban75 and destroy mod morale with his campaign. I met the guy and thought we got on OK. He was a funny poster for a while and a welcome addition to the boards.

But then he turned nasty and spiteful, often using personal information about other posters to ridicule and attack them while he stayed comfortably anonymous.

A host of posters left because they'd been targeted by him, and many more stopped posting in the forums where he was active because decent debate became impossible in the face of his endless wind-ups.

Almost all of the mods were on the verge of jacking it in.

If it wasn't for the real life meets - where I realised that it's not about those who shout the loudest - I'd probably given up on it too. It. was. that. bad.

That's how draining the whole thing had become, and those involved in the trolling know exactly who they are.

Until you've been on the receiving end of ernesto & co's group trolls you'll never know quite how depressing, energy-sapping and dispiriting it is.

He tried it with me several times in the past, and has recently been dsperately trying to convince the TG Junta that I'm a raging racist.

Sadly for ernesto, barely a soul on the TG believed his poisonous lies, but - of course, he was given free will to carry on posting them up (all these posts have been documented, btw).

Moreover, he's also busied himself trying to spread a rumour that I've somehow been dishonest with u75 members and have been making pots of money from donations.

This particularly unpleasant meme resurfaced through several TG posters here recently, with a few returning alter-egos thrown in for good measure.

And it's really tiresome.

I rather hoped that he'd direct his considerable energies into his new board, but it seems that he still craves the limelight here, and that's rather sad.

And more than a bit pathetic.

As for those forward looking people on the TG who want to make a go of things: I wish you the best, but I would suggest that until you reign in the trollers, this shit is unlikely to go away.


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

<editor shrieks in horror at the energy spent on the above post and resolves to go do something productive instead>


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> For the record, the closest these boards have ever come to being closed permanently was right at the end of ernesto's long season of trolling, which had been ably aided and abetted by his little clique of troublemakers, almost all of whom now reside in the Junta or enjoy mod/admin status on the TG.
> <snip>



fair post. So its for the best that TG exists! If only to distract ernie!

lets hope we can all move on.

I wish all the best to urban as well. Genuinely.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

cool.

can we draw a line as of now then everyone?

-------------------------------------------------?


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> cool.
> 
> can we draw a line as of now then everyone?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------?




Can I draw a kitten please?


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Can I draw a kitten please?



Go on then


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> I wish all the best to urban as well. Genuinely.


Would you like a kiss?


----------



## Top Dog (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> please could you tell me the other purposes of the secret forum that was called the Files.


God, you're a tedious cunt


----------



## Crispy (Feb 1, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Go on then



Yay!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

I now know enough about The Files to be less upset. I can confirm they've closed. and I agree that we should move on.
but one comment to steeplejack, chegrimandi and others I had considered to have more sense; you should have stamped on this waaaay, waaaay earlier. there are two people in particular who I don't think I can trust any more, and that hurts.
for gods sake TG...learn from this willya? 
Editor - I suggest you bin this thread


----------



## trashpony (Feb 1, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Yay!



Excellent job


----------



## chegrimandi (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Would you like a kiss?



easy tiger....


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> easy tiger....


Eeeuch! Put yer tongue away!

I didn't mean *that* kind of kiss!


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> God, you're a tedious cunt


Get down Shep!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

last in then?


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> Editor - I suggest you bin this thread



i vehemently disagree.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i vehemently disagree.



Oh cmon dub have a break, let them cackle amongst themselves, this is as good as its gonna get, well for today anyway  


No me im in last, im a virgin dont ya know!!!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 1, 2006)

I suggest it is closed.


----------



## dolly's gal (Feb 1, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Would you like a kiss?



oi! get yer own boyfriend!


----------



## girasol (Feb 1, 2006)

You might need this for this heavy duty thread:


----------



## knopf (Feb 1, 2006)

Let me be last in & I'll never post here again -- promise.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Feb 1, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Why not draw a line, with bans and the like?
> 
> You either go there or here.
> 
> Let things calm down and see what happens.


 
Easiest, quickest and simplest solution.
Set up a poll on this idea, everyone's got one week to vote.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Feb 1, 2006)

Me Me Me Pleeeeaseeeee!!!!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 1, 2006)

I really do think we've discussed this one dry, dub, nowt to be gained from rehashing it further....


----------



## Wolfie (Feb 1, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> last in then?




that beats kittens hands down  

I WANT ONE!!!!


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 1, 2006)

Can the thread be closed without binning? Might be a good idea to stop people bumping it in the future.


----------



## Dubversion (Feb 1, 2006)

Red Jezza said:
			
		

> I really do think we've discussed this one dry, dub, nowt to be gained from rehashing it further....




ok, close it. but don't bin it.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 1, 2006)

although, on the other hand, perhaps keeping it around for future reference might be a good thing.  making things just disappear isn't exactly our normal way of doing things.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 1, 2006)

> but one comment to steeplejack, chegrimandi and others I had considered to have more sense; you should have stamped on this waaaay, waaaay earlier. there are two people in particular who I don't think I can trust any more, and that hurts.



The Junta is a democracy. Believe it or not the Files was a way of avoiding a board war, a compromise between members who wanted no mention of urban and those who wanted the freedom to post whatever they wanted wherever they wanted.


----------



## Wolfie (Feb 1, 2006)

well I'll lock it now - if there's cries of foul play (Chuck you can always give a ring to complain  ), or other mods disagree, I can always open it again ...


----------

