it is because of his own inability to socially interact with people without being abusive.
That is complete bollox.
And so is this :
he was without doubt the most anti social and antagonistic person on here who had one line of argument - agree with me because I am right otherwise I will call you stupid.
So what if he was 'antagonistic' ? This is a forum.
So what if he called someone stupid ffs ?
I constantly disagreed with him- and sometimes he called me a ****. And ?
So what if he was 'antagonistic' ? This is a forum
You wouldnt tolerate it down the pub would you?
Short people are vicious and very cunning because they need to make up for their shortcoming ... Look at Prince whatever you call him this day that is evil ...
I was once told 7 short man can conjure up a plan to burn the sky that is how evil they are ...
That is complete bollox.
No, it's why he got banned. Keep up ernie.
Seems to me that despite your own pontificating, you're happy with anti social behaviour as long as it's a brand that you endorse.
You wouldnt tolerate it down the pub would you?
What's that got to do with it ? ......... clue me mancub
As I said in a previous post quote :
"I dislike no one on here (although I'm sure that I probably would if I met some in real life)"
If someone down the pub 'antagonised' me, I very much doubt that I would sit with them. Some people on here appear to want to go out of their way to be 'antagonised' by him. Like clicking on his threads for example.
you're happy with anti social behaviour as long as it's a brand that you endorse.
So how come I never complain about other forum users then ?
Explain that to me ?
Its quite possible that the majority of complaints arose from his posts on threads he didn't start.
The pub analogy may not be entirely correct: as you say, you wouldnt chose to spend time with someone who revels in being antagostic. That doesnt mean that to modify the analogy for a forum we should have to change our tolerance of antagonisers (the majority adapting to accomodate the minority), surely it should be the other way around and the antagonsiers should modify their behaviour or take themselves off the pitch?
So how come I never complain about other forum users then ?
But you do. I've never known you to be slow in coming forward if you disagree with someone. You may not complain to the mods but you still complain.
Anyway, back to the original topic. There is this gem in the interview:
Although he admits that the News of the World’s exposé of Mr Mosley’s German fantasy S&M sex sessions was embarrassing, he had no moral objections. “People can do what they like. I had known Max for 40 years and I had no idea he was involved in this sort of thing. In fact, I said to him, ‘I’ve been invited to all the meetings you’ve had but you forgot to invite me to this one’.”
I've never known you to be slow in coming forward if you disagree with someone. You may not complain to the mods but you still complain.
Complain ? Where do you get 'complain' from ?
To again quote myself from a previous post :
"However, very often I see posts which I consider to be complete drivel. I always deal with that little problem in one of two ways. Either I challenge the poster or, I ignore it. Those are my only two options."
I never forget that I have a choice concerning whether or not I post on this forum. For example I chose to completely ignore some of the drivel which I read on the recent Ronnie Biggs thread.
Rudeboy was/is a raging cock lobster, now dry your eyes and move on.
Ernie_lynch ir RudeBoy and I claim my £5.
SSP
SSP - that insults Ernie more than you can know 
Isn't insulting people what this place is for...I have MTBR for bike related stuff
BB is on its way!
SSP
I heard Mrs S signing for a recorded delivery this morning and I got all excited...only to feel deflated later 
ernie, there's little point contributing to threads whereby you're happy to condemn bigotry, intolerance and bullying in the wider world when you're happy enough to support it in this community.
Dissapointed, Devon.
All pubs have their characters, who occasionally get barred or sent home but are still the regulars that form the very reason people keep going there.
Despite being someone that preached peace, love and unity and saw himself as a champion of social co-existence he was without doubt the most anti social and antagonistic person on here
I wouldn't go that far, and having had more than a few run ins with Fred I have always taken it as the sort of banter and playing devils advocate on the argument that he both doled out and took in equal terms. There's no doubt he also raised some very fair points on racism and many other issues, although maybe took the PC angle a little too far on occasion.
who had one line of argument - agree with me because I am right otherwise I will call you stupid.
Or worse - I do feel that this was Fred's real weakness, he repeatedly fell into a pattern of personal insult to win an argument, probably inadvertently as a way of trying to provoke reaction rather than any real intention to insult.
I shouldn't lose too much sleep though, he'll be back.
Hopefully, the place is less fun without him
Am I missing something here? The very strong implication of the post from Mark when he closed the Rudeboy thread (and presumably also banned Rudeboy - I don't think I've seen him since) is that he got banned purely because of his inability to follow the forum rules regarding swear filter avoidance. Mark did even mention that somebody (the implication being that that somebody wasn't a "right wing bigot" regular) had complained about that specifically.
GG - are you suggesting he shouldn't be banned given his inability to follow a basic set of forum rules the rest of us manage (well OK I got banned briefly once for failing to follow one of the rules - I deserved it)?
As scathing as I am towards him, I miss him now he's not here - the forum is a poorer place without him. If only he could learn to stick to the rules (I don't think it would detract at all from what he brings to the forum if he did).
p.s. if the mods are listening, I do hope reporting posts isn't treated as a request to ban somebody. Like Stoner I report posts in order for them to be edited due to the poster making a mistake, not because I think the poster shouldn't be here.
Is it me or is it rather ironic?
A thread is started about Hitler and then becomes all about Rude Boy?! I feel a subliminal message thing going on here......
Is this a Communism being the mirror image of Facism thing? 
Frankly I miss the little guy. Surely we could have clubbed together to get some professional help to work out what was going on in his mind?
Back on topic - I disagree with Stoner, the words he uses do make him appear to be an apologist for Hitler. If you're going to suggest he did some good things, I'd suggest that at the very least you should also condemn the bad things he was responsible for (Bernie appears unable even to admit Hitler was actually responsible for these things).
Hitler "got things done" because if you opposed him you (along with your family) were fairly likely to end up dead, in prison or in a concentration camp. If Ecclestone really thinks that is some kind of model for how to run either society or a sport then I'm surprised he kept the pencils out of his nose long enough to make his money. You can't admire Hitler's ability to "get things done" without accepting how he did them.
The very strong implication of the post from Mark when he closed the Rudeboy thread (and presumably also banned Rudeboy - I don't think I've seen him since) is that he got banned purely because of his inability to follow the forum rules regarding swear filter avoidance.
Nope he didn't get banned for swearing.
Check his last posts here and I'm pretty sure that you won't find any swearing or anything in anyway offensive.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/profile/rudeboy
IMO he almost certainly got banned because of my post. As he says in an email to me :
"Funny, because I had a two-day ban, came back, dint post owt offensive, yet now I've been banned for good.
I suspect your very supportive post just served to piss Mark off even more."
I agree. IMO Mark just wants an easy uncomplicated life, and he dealt with the problem by simply banning RB. The swearing whilst maybe a problem in the past (as indeed it has been in my case) was simply the excuse.
It's ironic to think that RB probably got banned because of what I posted.
aracer - it's certainly what many people expect from a modern citizen.
I imagine there will be calls from the usual corners for Ecclestone to "clarify" his views, to "disown" the actions of Hitler etc etc, and of course he will come out, face the press, and do so. Probably grudgingly I expect, but Id like to believe because he would have thought "that it goes without saying" not that he's being made to disown views he holds some sympathy with.
I am disappointed rudeboy has been banned, especially if he had come back from a 2 day ban and done nowt wrong then got banned again.
I fell very tempted to complain about some of the bigots on here and some of the other people who provoke arguments.
Im not sure the bigots are quite as personally offensive as rudeboy could be.
Offensive views should be tolerated and argued against. Offensive behaviour shouldn't.
I disagree stoner - it all depends on your viewpoint I guess but I find the racism oft expressed on here very offensive whereas I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensive - sometimes very annoying as it posting all those irrelevant images on a thread but never offensive in the way racism and prejudice is.
Bernie Ecclestone believes that Hitler “got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not”. Those remarks go beyond a preference for decisive political leadership. They are more extreme even than a defence of autocracy.They amount to a perverse historical revision of the record of the worst of despots. Ecclestone appears to be suggesting that Hitler may not have sought the Final Solution. Instead, in Ecclestone’s view, it is possible that Hitler was persuaded by others to attempt, against his instincts, the annihilation of the Jews.
already, aracer...
A Times commentator inferring a lot more from his words than I think is fair. Im no Ecclestone apologist, but I find the modern need for having to tread so softly everywhere, and clarify and caveat every statement in fear of offending, tiresome.
Of course if you're going to enter the subject of Hitler, you should always be thinking soft footsteps (as indeed you or I would), but maybe its a generational thing.
I have to confess I dont think Ive seen a great deal of racism in here. In fact Im pushed to identify a thread that is racist.(the Islamic girlfriend doesnt count IMO, because people atributed racist overtones to what was, IMO a quesiton founded in religious prejudice and I missed the Juan/French one, but since he's shown himself particularly prickly on the matter I dont have a whole lot of sympathy).
Prejudice (but not racial prejudice) is not neccessarily bad, it's just that the prejudicial has not yet completed the journey of knowlegde. Prejudice is ignorance, not malice IMO.
EDIT: TJ, Im sure this will roll on, but I'm going out, so not ignoring any posts in answer. I'll catch up with you later.
Stoner - I think it is a matter of perspective. It has been less frequent of late but I still see and nasty racist undercurrent that sometimes breaks out into the open.
I think you are right is is about ignorance and to some extent it is about diversity of views.
I disagree stoner - it all depends on your viewpoint I guess but I find the racism oft expressed on here very offensive whereas I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensive - sometimes very annoying as it posting all those irrelevant images on a thread but never offensive in the way racism and prejudice is.
TJ, racism is offensive and against the forum rules and should be reported. I am assuming that you don't find RB's behaviour offensive as you have never been on the receiving end of it. I have and can assure you that I found it deeply offensive. I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant simply because they have an opposing point of view to mine, one which I might add, is not conclusive proof of either my ignorance or stupidity. I wouldn't tolerate it face to face and I won't tolerate it on the internet either.
What I find most depressing is that the posters who have so far been in defence of RB are those that usually rail against bigotry and narrow mindedness. Those traits seem to be happily ignored however when they come from a forum member who's political sentiments, if not manner of delivery, are sympathetic to their own.
Edit. FWIW, I often agreed with the political stances that he took but rarely the manner in which he choose to deliver them.
Fair enough TM. I did say
I don't find rudeboys behaviour offensivenot that his behaviour is not offensive.
trailmonkey - MemberI am assuming that you don't find RB's behaviour offensive as you have never been on the receiving end of it. I have and can assure you that I found it deeply offensive. I will not tolerate someone calling me stupid and ignorant
You need to chill mate.
Maybe take a your cue from this post, eh ? :
trailmonkey - MemberLOL at GG.
The epitomy of someone taking the internet too seriously.
I have often been 'on the receiving end'. I have been called all sorts, but I have never been 'deeply offended'.
Quite frankly I couldn't give a toss, if someone called me 'stupid and ignorant' - why on earth should I ?
You sound pretty stupid and ignorant to me trailmonkey, if you are offended by being called 'stupid and ignorant'.
BTW - Judging from the recent comments, it is interesting to note that no one appears to believe that the issue was RB's 'swearing'.
One of the things I find distasteful about this forum, and society in general, is that those folk who espouse the (worthy I'll admit) ideals of tolerance, diversity and the like are also the folk who tend to be intolerant of those who don't share their own viewpoints.
For example the remarks above about a "strong undercurrent of racism". Most of the stuff on here that gets slammed as "racist" is merely someone expressing an opinion that other folk don't like. Personally I find the automatic tagging of someone as "racist" just because you don't agree with their point of view far more offensive than most of the original remarks.
Nope he didn't get banned for swearing.
I do agree that anybody who gets offended by RB either hasn't been here long enough to understand his posting style, or takes this forum far too seriously - I'd like to think I'd take it as a compliment if he started abusing me!
FFS, people! It's been a glorious sunny Saturday, and you chose to spend it like this?
*Wanders off, refills glass from the Pimms jug and turns off Wifi on the phone*
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
