WTF ?? « Singletrack Forum

Chat Forum

[closed]

WTF ??

110 posts & 45 voices | Started 2 years ago by G | Latest reply from tankslapper

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 123 Next »

ernie_lynch - Member

I try and persuade them that their opinions are wrong ....

LOL !

I'll let you into a little secret Junkyard .........................you're wasting your time mate !

People aren't persuaded by 'facts and logic'. They are persuaded by what they already know to be right. And if they don't already have an opinion on something, then they wouldn't be arguing with you in the first place.

People very rarely change their opinions as a result of one conversation, and if they do, it's very unlikely to be anything fundamental - maybe just tweaking something which they already broadly agree with.

People base their opinions on their life experiences, you are hardly likely to change that with one or two 'well thought out posts' !

I am certainly under no illusions, and I tend to post on here (even on issues which I have very strong opinions on) for it's 'banter value'. I also find putting my thoughts down in words helps me to sort them out in my head and has a certain, 'therapeutic value'.

I certainly don't expect to change other peoples opinions ! How many people's opinion do you think you have changed Junkyard ?

On the more contentious issues such as bigotry - racism, homophobia etc, I find that 'ridicule' works quite well. After all the comic value of ignorance and prejudice is well documented, as shown by the sheer number of comedy routines based on it. Plus ridiculing a racist f**kwit amusing me hugely.

I would suggest that you stop taking the internet so seriously Junkyard, and don't attach too much importance to a chat forum

Posted 2 years ago #
roper - Member

I complained to the Mods over a post once, but it was one of my own

I enjoyed some of RB's posts though, some I didn't read.
Does anyone know the age groups of people reading this forum who might be offended by "foul" language?

is not, does not in any way, bovva.

safe

Posted 2 years ago #
lowey - Member

I couldn't give a monkey's either way.

There, got it of my chest.

Posted 2 years ago #
coffeeking - Member

People very rarely change their opinions as a result of one conversation, and if they do, it's very unlikely to be anything fundamental - maybe just tweaking something which they already broadly agree with.

Which totally nullifies anyones post who says "I think we should be able to debate this" (see mushrooms posting). No point debating anything if no-one will change their mind.

Personally I dont care. I'd gotten bored of RBs waffle long ago, as soon as I saw his replies I changed thread - it WAS getting predictable and boring.

Posted 2 years ago #
johnners - Member

I would suggest that you stop taking the internet so seriously Junkyard, and don't attach too much importance to a chat forum

Why not take your own advice, if this is all so unimportant, why does it matter who's banned or not from participating? It does appear that this all matters to you more than you profess. On balance though, I'm with lowey on this, I don't really care.

FWIW I found paddedfred frequently longwinded, often sanctimonious and sometimes irritating. I coped by seeing "rudeboy" at the top of a post and not bothering to read it.

Posted 2 years ago #
G - Member

WTF ? = Wheres That Fred....... whats wrong with that?

Actually I found the swearing post very funny, and to some extent in the same circumstances I would have posted in a similar vein. Regarding kids on STW..... parents, I don't wish to worry you, but if they can navigate to here, then they can also probably navigate to "Anna takes it up the pooper while Garth stops her chatter"...... Rudeboy frankly is the least of your worries, and may I suggest you take your parental responsibilites more seriously in future!

Anyway, I didn't start this thread to criticise the decision or to undermine the mods. Its their forum and its up to themn how they run it.

No likey : So start your own froum...... Oh! someone already did and look where that led to...

Posted 2 years ago #
aracer - Member

Regarding kids on STW..... parents, I don't wish to worry you, but if they can navigate to here, then they can also probably navigate to ...
The rather obvious difference being that in general this is a legitimate site for them to access, and unlikely to be blocked by any netnanny software - I'm sure mark would rather it stayed unblocked by such software.

I don't quite understand why some people think it's so important that we should be allowed to post stuff on here which it would be inappropriate for a child to view.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

But what is inappropriate for a child to view? - bowdlerised swearing is inappropriate but scantily clad girls are not?

Posted 2 years ago #
Stoner - Member

a body prude are we TJ?

bet you're not a fan of breastfeeding in public too....

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Stoner - not at all - I just see the Friday pervy threads as totally inappropriate on here. I feel very strongly about this.

Posted 2 years ago #
roper - Member

I was on the beach yesterday with my 2 year old son. There were lots of men and women not wearing much. I can't say I heard "back doors being smashed in" or "hanging out of people" though. Why would that be?
Maybe because it's not acceptable in a family place?

Posted 2 years ago #
DrJ - Member

Some people would probably see the Picolax story as inappropriate for children as well.

Posted 2 years ago #
aracer - Member

IMHO the pictures (those that actually stuck rigidly to the rules) would be fine without the commentary. Though in it's current form I do tend to agree with you TJ.

Some people would probably see the Picolax story as inappropriate for children as well.
We have to distinguish here between what a prude would think inappropriate, and what really is an issue. Again IMHO there isn't actually anything wrong with children reading about bodily functions.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrJ - Member

We have to distinguish here between what a prude would think inappropriate, and what really is an issue. Again IMHO there isn't actually anything wrong with children reading about bodily functions.

Well, indeed, but there is no accepted definition of what is really an issue. For some people sexual activity of any sort is an issue; for others, not.

Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?" That is a question only STW Towers can answer!!

Posted 2 years ago #
noteeth - Member

Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?"

Moreover, why are we even here?

[has existential crisis]

Posted 2 years ago #
CaptainFlashheart - Member

noteeth - Member
Another unclear issue is "who is the forum intended for?"

Moreover, why are we even here?

[has existential crisis]

Never mind that, what if the hokey cokey really IS what it's all about?

Posted 2 years ago #
aracer - Member

Well, indeed, but there is no accepted definition of what is really an issue.

It's actually surprisingly clear http://www.singletrackworld.com/forums/forum-rules/

Posted 2 years ago #
G - Member

Presumably, folk insert ear plugs in their children if they go into town with them, and cover their eyes at the beach/swimming pool?

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

Incidentally, since when was this a family orientated forum? Why would ANY impressionable child want to be looking at it anyway? I don't get that at all. Are we sure this isn't some self righteous twonk hiding behind the "it corrupts the kids excuse?"

I'm not a great lover of gratuitous bad language, but I'm no lover of self righteousness either. Get a grip, its a bunch of adults having a laugh and letting off a bit of steam. Anyway is substituting pictures, or a series of these !"£$$%^* actually swearing or is it merely finding an alternative way of expressing yourself? Is anyone planning on banning the use of the word gay to describe homo sexuals, or people from using "like" to punctuate their sentences?? Surely both of these are likewise finding an alternative route for expression also.

Posted 2 years ago #
noteeth - Member

This forum, is coming like a ghost forum
All the clubs have been closed down
This place, is coming like a ghost forum
Bands won't play no more
Too much fighting on the dance floor

Do you remember the good old days before the ghost forum
We danced and sang, and the music played inna de boomforum

In his defence, PaddedFred always ran an excellent (if occasional) virtual nightclub. Wheel and come again!

Posted 2 years ago #
shands - Member

I will miss his underless drivel!

Posted 2 years ago #
roper - Member

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

I think you miss the point. Are you suggesting it is ok for a three or four, five or six year old to read the examples I gave?

Posted 2 years ago #
enfht - Member

RB's "eviction" has a lot in common with Michael Jackson

Some will mourn his passing whilst others have always hated the stupid idiot.

There's also the issue of every frickin post mentioning him, why can't everyone get over it ffs ! He'll be back, on the TV, on the radio and on a forum near you

We CAN be certain though that he's looking down upon us all now...the flaming pedo !!!

Posted 2 years ago #
G - Member

PS: Just reread the rules in their entirety, and to be fair it says what it says. No issues as repeatedly stated above, except in so much that I do still feel the forum will be the lesser for the plonkers absence.

Posted 2 years ago #
aracer - Member

cover their eyes at the beach/swimming pool?

I thought we'd covered that one - it's not the lack of clothing in pictures which is the issue (quite the contrary - children have to be taught that nudity is an issue )

Posted 2 years ago #
G - Member

PPS:
roper - Member

Roper: From interest, does your two year old a) read, and b) surf the net unaccompanied?

I think you miss the point. Are you suggesting it is ok for a three or four, five or six year old to read the examples I gave?

No I think you miss mine, a) can they actually read?, b) do they surf the internet alone? c) Would they have the slightest interst in the forum if they did both a & b? d) would they even understand it in the extremely unlikely event that they did a, b & c and stumbled across something that could be defined as offensive.

My larger point is that one mans offensive is anothers acceptable.

To me living in luxury through the unbridled use of cheap fossil fuels, whilst looking on blandly at others who have nothing, or attending a church which has actively supported paedophilia is obsence and hugely offensive, but continuing in the ribald tradition of the English language, which dates back to Chaucer is simply not. Whether its expressed in the appreciation of form, or through the use of language. Its the motivation behind those acts which is significant, if the intent is to offend then no, but otherwise thats life surely?

Posted 2 years ago #
soobalias - Member

a greater percentage of the forum will be readable while he is gone.

while most threads are known to be avoidable by the title (TJ, the AnA threads - pointless nsfw drivel posted by sexually frustrated ******'s) freds appearance always left an unsavoury taste.

Posted 2 years ago #
nbt - Member

I suspect that it is only a very small number who are weak or/and inarticulate.

so weak or inarticulate people are fair game are they? It's no wonder some people lurk (or even leave) rather than post, not everyone is as articulate as you....

Posted 2 years ago #
CaptainFlashheart - Member

I doubt very much that mrsflash and annabanana are "sexually frustrated ******'s". I certainly know that I'm not and would suspect that all those who join in are not, either.

Nice evasion of the swear filter there, by the way. Ironic, really.

Posted 2 years ago #
roper - Member

No I think you miss mine, a) can they actually read?, b) do they surf the internet alone? c) Would they have the slightest interst in the forum if they did both a & b? d) would they even understand it in the extremely unlikely event that they did a, b & c and stumbled across something that could be defined as offensive.

ok if we have a five six year old.
In reply to a) yes b)maybe, a pc can be puton safe mode c) probably if they like bikes or see a parent on the forum.

d) the level of understanding is sort of irrelevant.
Would you use the same language with your mates in a pub as you would with a child? It has been stated that this forum is for family intent which would suggest children as well as adults.
Then again maybe what was meant was older parents with children over the age of 18.

Posted 2 years ago #
HackneyRider - Member

I doubt very much that mrsflash and annabanana are "sexually frustrated ******'s". I certainly know that I'm not and would suspect that all those who join in are not, either.

Nice evasion of the swear filter there, by the way. Ironic, really.

CFH - Show the forum a picture of your girlfriend\wife\boyfriend in their most 'exciting' sportswear\posh frock\underwear then?

girlfriend\wife\boyfriend does not mean your righthand.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrJ - Member

It's actually surprisingly clear http://www.singletrackworld.com/forums/forum-rules/

It actually isn't - does the Picolax thread does not conceivably fall foul of any of those rules?

Posted 2 years ago #
G - Member

Would you use the same language with your mates in a pub as you would with a child? It has been stated that this forum is for family intent which would suggest children as well as adults.

Pretty much, yes I think I would, but I suspect that you are pre-supposing a number of things there. Do I write the same way as I speak? Nope.

I still don't see too many 6 year olds, let alone a 2 year old as per your original post and my reply to it willingly coming on here on their own. To say the forum is overwhelmed with that sort of user is, I think stretching imgagination somewhat.

Regardless, I'm neither disagreeing with the rules, or the ruling. What I do disagree with is the sanctimonious who will happily moan about the likes of Rude Boy, but conveniently overlook their own behaviour.

Its a bit like your post regarding your two year old, which was self evidently inappropriate to what was being said as I pointed out to you. I note the attempts to up the age to make more impact, but the original post is exactly the fatuous sort of thing I am talking about.

Posted 2 years ago #
crazy-legs - Member

It actually isn't - does the Picolax thread does not conceivably fall foul of any of those rules?

The Picolax thread had the advantage of being funny. Most of Rudeboy's posts were not funny and presumably took up far too much moderator time when the mods could have been doing other stuff - like researching, writing and photographing articles for the magazine. Yes, that thing that pays their wages...

Posted 2 years ago #
roper - Member

I'm not going to carry on arguing with you. You are missing point for arguments sake and becoming the things you are arguing about.
I have better things to do.
Bye bye.

Posted 2 years ago #
DrJ - Member

@crazy-legs: completely agree with everything you wrote. My point is just that the "rules" do not provide a perfect framework for the forum. And nor do they need to, IMHO. They provide a set of ideas that the mods can adapt to local conditions, getting rid of porn, and bores like RB while keeping funny but vulgar stuff like Picolax.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

CFH - I object strongly to the objectification of scantily clad females - this is my right. This sort of practice is strongly linked to sexual violence from the attitudes it engenders. Whilst it may be that you can avoid this "won't someone think of the children" In the past I have simply ignored the threads but in this new STW era of complaining to the Mods about stuff that you think is inappropriate I shall be reporting it.

If you want a forum of scantily clad young women there are I believe many places on the net to meet your needs.

I find the slavering perving over these pics unacceptable on a family orientated forum

Posted 2 years ago #
CaptainFlashheart - Member

TJ, are you that much of a prig in real life as well?

Sexual violence, eh? Of course. So, by enjoying the banter and humour of the day, we're all secretly harbouring nefarious desires like that are we? Well thank you, Mr Freud, now how about you disappear up your own backside as a parting shot?

family orientated forum

Really? Is it? How many users here are under 16, even, let alone "children"?

Posted 2 years ago #
MrSmith - Member

why would under 18's look at this forum? it's full of very uncool daily mail readers who ride marins and go to bed after watching news at 10.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

CFH - prig - lovely word.

Of course not - but the excuse for banning rudeboy is his avoidance of the swear filter as his posts might be seen by kids and according to many including the Mods this is a family orientated forum.

I just want the mods and others to see the hypocrisy. Bowdlerised swearing is unacceptable as children might see it but people perving over scantily clad young women is acceptable despite the FACT that this distorts relationships?

However the pervy threads do really annoy me - in the same way as page 3 of the sun does.

Posted 2 years ago #
IanMunro - Member

I object strongly to the objectification of scantily clad females - this is my right. This sort of practice is strongly linked to sexual violence from the attitudes it engenders.

Ah, so if you go to somewhere such as Saudi, you'd expect to find little or no sexual violence then?

Posted 2 years ago #