Page 2 of 3
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:19 pmby JBG
Back on topic. Would it be constructive, for the good of the forum, that there be a blanket ban on PM's being published in public, for whatever reason?
I'm on a computer technology forum and that forum has none of the problems this forum has. One of the reasons is that PMs are to be kept strictly private unless they are forwarded (in the form of complaint) to a moderator. The moderators on that forum don't even have to enforce the rules because its simply etiquette among members not to publish PMs.
What do people think?
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:24 pmby Bad Bob
JBG wrote:Back on topic. Would it be constructive, for the good of the forum, that there be a blanket ban on PM's being published in public, for whatever reason?
I'm on a computer technology forum and that forum has none of the problems this forum has. One of the reasons is that PMs are to be kept strictly private unless they are forwarded (in the form of complaint) to a moderator. The moderators on that forum don't even have to enforce the rules because its simply etiquette among members not to publish PMs.
What do people think?
I'd definitely support that.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:26 pmby woof woof !
JBG wrote:Back on topic. Would it be constructive, for the good of the forum, that there be a blanket ban on PM's being published in public, for whatever reason?
What do people think?
I think the diplomats in here would enjoy it . 
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:32 pmby Woollyback
KEEP FLAGS SCOUSE!
err sorry i meant KEEP PM'S PRIVATE
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:33 pmby wrighty (not mark!)
Nar, leave it. I quite enjoy laughin at Peewee being a blurt
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:39 pmby JBG
woof woof ! wrote:JBG wrote:Back on topic. Would it be constructive, for the good of the forum, that there be a blanket ban on PM's being published in public, for whatever reason?
What do people think?
I think the diplomats in here would enjoy it .
A diplomatic immunity as it were.
No, I think on balance, for the greater good, the pros of banning the publication of PMs might outweigh the negatives. It seems to me that at least 95% of the time PMs were published here it was to further somebody's point in a spat.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:40 pmby 66-1112520797
Edited for diplomatic reasons.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:41 pmby JBG
wrighty (not mark!) wrote:Nar, leave it. I quite enjoy laughin at Peewee being a blurt
..
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:41 pmby Ciggy
PM Private Message should stay that/
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:42 pmby Ciggy
JBG wrote:wrighty (not mark!) wrote:
..
HA HA 
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:42 pmby wrighty (not mark!)
JBG wrote:wrighty (not mark!) wrote:Nar, leave it. I quite enjoy laughin at Peewee being a blurt
..
love it 
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:43 pmby Sabre
He certainly has the right to respond
Cool. I don't have problems to banter with you, but it would be nice to be about football. Like that old discussion in which you defended that Neil Mellor was better than Morientes. For me one of the stelar moments since I joined this forum, never laughed more.
I'm offering you out? if that means wether I'm challenging you yes, I'm tired of being insulted, and it reaches a point in which the latin blood has more weight than the leveled head. I'd suggest you to not take seriously the internet, you're acting like a newbie, and if you want make it personal, do so, but DO NOT bother the forum, which has houndred of users, not just your friends.
You've been told not to post PMs in public. You've been edited. You insist. Surely you think you're above the rules? Wait until I laugh.
(Waiting)
There.
Hate me if you wish, same applies for your friends, you won't be much more than a string of bytes in my screen, for me it's more important wether tomorrow it's going to rain.
But don't think this shít is important to anybody else, and get it sorted via PM, or again, face to face if you feel you're so offended.
I apologise to all the members of this forum as I've been advised not to respond this ru.bbish. I know I promised to Lando and others I wouldn't make petulant answers. But I've reached a point in which I don't care the reputation as a mod I have any more. Plus I've learnt this days that no matter what I do, it will be wrong for some people:
*If I remove a sig due to respect, then I'm a weakling.
* If I recover it back because after all I did nothing wrong, then I'm a wind up merchant and a twát.
* If I shut up, I'll be called a liar.
* If I Speak up, then I'll be told that I'm not a proper mod. And two-faced and underhand.
This is a joke, and that's the most honest I can get. Fúck the diplomacy.
This attitudes are bannable in any forum, and those comments wouldn't be occuring if those members would have been *moderated* before.
Pah. I don't care.
For you it would be important that I was de-modded, so far that doesn't seem that's going to happen. If it happens because of this answer, I'll admit it happily, and keep posting, no drama threads, no farewells with tears in the eyes or other classic internet stuff. That's old 
and I have seen that many times.
Even if your most wet dream becomes true and I'm de-modded, I'll keep reading and posting about LFC, and the other mods will take actions, so you know Woof Woof and Peewee what's the wise decission here, leave this shameful story behind, and stick to normal posting.
And I want to take advantage of this thread as all the fight threads have lots of lurkers. Hear me well: Pennant is much better than you all think. And Stu, Agger is class, get your facts right. :laugh
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:44 pmby red37
etiquette...diplomacy...compassion...full useage of the queens english?
this is a footy forum. The majority of us in here are consumed either by Ale or Medication of one variety or another.
i support the PM thing though...there has to be something sacrosanct. Maybe it will be taken on board.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:49 pmby Stu.Murph
So you can say whatever you like to someone in pm and it shouldn't be published by the recipient?
Disagree. 
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:50 pmby Rafa D
