# Moderators



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.

Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ? 

If he hadn't started trolling, the thread would have not gone off topic.

Perhaps you could sort out your own house before looking at mine

I expect this one will end up in 101 as well


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.

Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ? 

If he hadn't started trolling, the thread would have not gone off topic.

Perhaps you could sort out your own house before looking at mine

I expect this one will end up in 101 as well


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.

Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ? 

If he hadn't started trolling, the thread would have not gone off topic.

Perhaps you could sort out your own house before looking at mine

I expect this one will end up in 101 as well


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
> P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.
> 
> Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ?
> ...



Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
> P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.
> 
> Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ?
> ...



Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> That is 2 threads in 2 days which you have moved to room 101 in 2 days.
> P&L is a subscriptin only board, people who subscribe to and post here are thicker skinned than that.
> 
> Do you really need to behave in such a heavy handed way on them or are you uncomfortable when a few home truths are posted up - one that you have banned members back on here trolling ?
> ...



Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?



This was for the mods Claudine. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.

They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?



This was for the mods Claudine. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.

They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?



This was for the mods Claudine. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.

They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> *This was for the mods Claudine*. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.
> 
> They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...



Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> *This was for the mods Claudine*. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.
> 
> They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...



Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> *This was for the mods Claudine*. Perhaps a bit of decisive action on the trolls would avoid the subjects going off topic as happened on the last thread.
> 
> They have threatened me with a ban. I expect one to follow for such dissidence on here...



Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> Perhaps because your threads are posted delibrately to provoke (to troll) rather than intitiate any useful discussion.?




The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> Perhaps because your threads are posted delibrately to provoke (to troll) rather than intitiate any useful discussion.?




The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> Perhaps because your threads are posted delibrately to provoke (to troll) rather than intitiate any useful discussion.?




The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing.



Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing.



Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing.



Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.


----------



## srw (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?



The OP was yet another very transparent attempt to create a fake controversy on one of your very dull hobby-horses. Mercifully it's failed.

No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


----------



## srw (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?



The OP was yet another very transparent attempt to create a fake controversy on one of your very dull hobby-horses. Mercifully it's failed.

No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


----------



## srw (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> The OP was an attempt to discuss government agencies hijacking private enterprise to push their agenda to the masses to the point of brainwashing. If that is you idea of trolling you need to look up its meaning ?



The OP was yet another very transparent attempt to create a fake controversy on one of your very dull hobby-horses. Mercifully it's failed.

No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


----------



## Bad Company (18 Jan 2010)

I don't see why the BRAKE thread was moved to 101 either.

I would complain but it's not my forum and as well get to use it for free that could be difficult.


----------



## Bad Company (18 Jan 2010)

I don't see why the BRAKE thread was moved to 101 either.

I would complain but it's not my forum and as well get to use it for free that could be difficult.


----------



## Bad Company (18 Jan 2010)

I don't see why the BRAKE thread was moved to 101 either.

I would complain but it's not my forum and as well get to use it for free that could be difficult.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.



It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.

It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.

Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.



It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.

It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.

Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Then put it in Site Feedback and stop clogging up P&L with it. I'm sure if they're convinced that new members are banned ones in disguise, they will act as they see fit. It's not up to you to police the forum.



It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.

It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.

Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.



I observed a driver doing well under the limit this morning and then running a red light into the path of busy traffic. Actions such has his put all of us at risk - especially when on two wheels given we like to be at the front of the queue at lights. I made a valid comparison.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.



I observed a driver doing well under the limit this morning and then running a red light into the path of busy traffic. Actions such has his put all of us at risk - especially when on two wheels given we like to be at the front of the queue at lights. I made a valid comparison.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Bullshit, Linf. The OP was an excuse to have a dig at Brake.



I observed a driver doing well under the limit this morning and then running a red light into the path of busy traffic. Actions such has his put all of us at risk - especially when on two wheels given we like to be at the front of the queue at lights. I made a valid comparison.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.
> 
> It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.
> 
> Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!



Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.
> 
> It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.
> 
> Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!



Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

very-near said:


> It is not unreasonable to want to be able to post on an issue without risk of unprovoked personal attacks from banned people registering specifically to do this.
> 
> It seems you are happier to mix with the trolls than the regulars given this response.
> 
> Debate is about bringing about opposing views. There is no quicker way of killing this concept than banning anyone for proffering a different one!



Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.




Not like me to state the obvious, but the mods are well aware of my concerns regarding Telesonic/spindrift as they obviously read the thread before moving it to 101 
The way I see it is that a forum is the sum of its membership, not the team who moderate it. Have you ever heard of the saying 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'!. 

You don't have to open my threads if you don't want to interact with me, and you are equally sharp with your responses to me or anyone else here you disagree with Claudine.

How can I insult Dell boy if he can't even read what I post


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.




Not like me to state the obvious, but the mods are well aware of my concerns regarding Telesonic/spindrift as they obviously read the thread before moving it to 101 
The way I see it is that a forum is the sum of its membership, not the team who moderate it. Have you ever heard of the saying 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'!. 

You don't have to open my threads if you don't want to interact with me, and you are equally sharp with your responses to me or anyone else here you disagree with Claudine.

How can I insult Dell boy if he can't even read what I post


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Stop speculating idly as to who people are. If you suspect a poster is a banned user, report the post, shut up and give the mods a chance to look into it. In the meantime this morning, you've been extremely rude to Telesonic99, made the obligatory snide dig at Dellzeqq (water off a duck's back, Linf, even if he could see it), called me an idiot (water/duck again), and are now being gratuitously rude to the mods, who indulge you a lot more than you deserve.




Not like me to state the obvious, but the mods are well aware of my concerns regarding Telesonic/spindrift as they obviously read the thread before moving it to 101 
The way I see it is that a forum is the sum of its membership, not the team who moderate it. Have you ever heard of the saying 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'!. 

You don't have to open my threads if you don't want to interact with me, and you are equally sharp with your responses to me or anyone else here you disagree with Claudine.

How can I insult Dell boy if he can't even read what I post


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> You're not even the rubber duck.




I was speaking metaphorically about the regualr posters, not the trolls who register to have a personal pop smeggers.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> You're not even the rubber duck.




I was speaking metaphorically about the regualr posters, not the trolls who register to have a personal pop smeggers.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

User3094 said:


> You're not even the rubber duck.




I was speaking metaphorically about the regualr posters, not the trolls who register to have a personal pop smeggers.


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?



I'm grateful for your input and I have recognised its balance RT.

Seeing the subject through my eyes this morning (and the reason I posted it). I'm driving along a road behind a van which doesn't seem to be really with it, but doing everything which the road safety campaigners would approve of and at a speed well below either its vehicular limit or the NSL. The music finishes on the radio and straight away, I get bombarded with 'kill your speed, not a child'. The van then runs a red light on a road which carries a lot of cyclists (relatively speaking) and I'm thinking that the focus is really in the wrong place. Th van driver could have been tired or drunk, or just a chancer. Either way, I felt the ridiculous irony in timing was note worthy. 
A work colleague of an old school mate killed a driver on this very junciton 25 years ago by running a red light so I feel fairly strongly about this point of issue as he robbed a family of a man minding his own business, and spent 12 months in a young offenders institution for a moment of madness.

Rather than discussing the merits of inattentive driver's of 3.5 tonne vans running red lights on busy junctions, people seem more interested in making a personal dig which I felt was out of order because I dared to mention BRAKE and caused the thread to go well off topic. 

My opinion is that whilst speeding is an issue (most certainly inappropriate speed), it is not the primary cause of serious accidents, but bad timing and impatientness is (which is a result of bad timing)

As this viewpoint doesn't fit the 'mainstream' view, there are plenty here who will jump in and deliberately spoiled the thread to suppress it. Democracy at work eh 

Thanks for your time and advice anyway RT - and can you sort out spindrift whilst you are there as well please


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?



I'm grateful for your input and I have recognised its balance RT.

Seeing the subject through my eyes this morning (and the reason I posted it). I'm driving along a road behind a van which doesn't seem to be really with it, but doing everything which the road safety campaigners would approve of and at a speed well below either its vehicular limit or the NSL. The music finishes on the radio and straight away, I get bombarded with 'kill your speed, not a child'. The van then runs a red light on a road which carries a lot of cyclists (relatively speaking) and I'm thinking that the focus is really in the wrong place. Th van driver could have been tired or drunk, or just a chancer. Either way, I felt the ridiculous irony in timing was note worthy. 
A work colleague of an old school mate killed a driver on this very junciton 25 years ago by running a red light so I feel fairly strongly about this point of issue as he robbed a family of a man minding his own business, and spent 12 months in a young offenders institution for a moment of madness.

Rather than discussing the merits of inattentive driver's of 3.5 tonne vans running red lights on busy junctions, people seem more interested in making a personal dig which I felt was out of order because I dared to mention BRAKE and caused the thread to go well off topic. 

My opinion is that whilst speeding is an issue (most certainly inappropriate speed), it is not the primary cause of serious accidents, but bad timing and impatientness is (which is a result of bad timing)

As this viewpoint doesn't fit the 'mainstream' view, there are plenty here who will jump in and deliberately spoiled the thread to suppress it. Democracy at work eh 

Thanks for your time and advice anyway RT - and can you sort out spindrift whilst you are there as well please


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I have to say Linf - and I wasn't going to bring this up - mine has been one of the few voices raised in support of you during recent discussions in the mods forum. I've been trying to point out that I don't think you're a troll, and that you don't deserve to have every thread hijacked or moved to 101. However, starting thinly disguised threads about speeding while pretending to post about commercial radio is not helping your cause at all and is making me look like a bit of an idiot for supporting you in the first place. As a friendly warning from someone who actually believes you do have a valid contribution to make to CC, can I suggest that you stop making contentious posts for a bit and perhaps post something about cycling instead?



I'm grateful for your input and I have recognised its balance RT.

Seeing the subject through my eyes this morning (and the reason I posted it). I'm driving along a road behind a van which doesn't seem to be really with it, but doing everything which the road safety campaigners would approve of and at a speed well below either its vehicular limit or the NSL. The music finishes on the radio and straight away, I get bombarded with 'kill your speed, not a child'. The van then runs a red light on a road which carries a lot of cyclists (relatively speaking) and I'm thinking that the focus is really in the wrong place. Th van driver could have been tired or drunk, or just a chancer. Either way, I felt the ridiculous irony in timing was note worthy. 
A work colleague of an old school mate killed a driver on this very junciton 25 years ago by running a red light so I feel fairly strongly about this point of issue as he robbed a family of a man minding his own business, and spent 12 months in a young offenders institution for a moment of madness.

Rather than discussing the merits of inattentive driver's of 3.5 tonne vans running red lights on busy junctions, people seem more interested in making a personal dig which I felt was out of order because I dared to mention BRAKE and caused the thread to go well off topic. 

My opinion is that whilst speeding is an issue (most certainly inappropriate speed), it is not the primary cause of serious accidents, but bad timing and impatientness is (which is a result of bad timing)

As this viewpoint doesn't fit the 'mainstream' view, there are plenty here who will jump in and deliberately spoiled the thread to suppress it. Democracy at work eh 

Thanks for your time and advice anyway RT - and can you sort out spindrift whilst you are there as well please


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

Telesonic isn't Spindrift. Regarding your other points, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid your detractors will simply see another thread started by very-near which reads like a dig at BRAKE and is tenuously connected to local radio. And besides, whatever the merits of your particular point in this instance, even you must agree that we've done the speeding thing to death here over the years.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

Telesonic isn't Spindrift. Regarding your other points, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid your detractors will simply see another thread started by very-near which reads like a dig at BRAKE and is tenuously connected to local radio. And besides, whatever the merits of your particular point in this instance, even you must agree that we've done the speeding thing to death here over the years.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Jan 2010)

Telesonic isn't Spindrift. Regarding your other points, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid your detractors will simply see another thread started by very-near which reads like a dig at BRAKE and is tenuously connected to local radio. And besides, whatever the merits of your particular point in this instance, even you must agree that we've done the speeding thing to death here over the years.


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



srw said:


> No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


I think he was only referring to his own threads. So it might speak volumes but the topic is not quite what you were proposing.


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



srw said:


> No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


I think he was only referring to his own threads. So it might speak volumes but the topic is not quite what you were proposing.


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hopefully. What's the problem? I like this decisive action, and if you want to carry on in 101, what's stopping you?


The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



srw said:


> No-one else has corrected your factual error, so I will. It's not two threads in two days that have been moved to 101. It's twelve threads in three days. The fact you don't know that speaks volumes.


I think he was only referring to his own threads. So it might speak volumes but the topic is not quite what you were proposing.


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



There we are then, as we say down here .


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



There we are then, as we say down here .


----------



## theclaud (18 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> The threads which have recently been moved to 101 have been locked at the same time, which will be what is stopping him.



There we are then, as we say down here .


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

Just to insert a bit of stereotyping, shouldn't that be "down year"?


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

Just to insert a bit of stereotyping, shouldn't that be "down year"?


----------



## Norm (18 Jan 2010)

Just to insert a bit of stereotyping, shouldn't that be "down year"?


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Telesonic isn't Spindrift. Regarding your other points, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid your detractors will simply see another thread started by very-near which reads like a dig at BRAKE and is tenuously connected to local radio. And besides, whatever the merits of your particular point in this instance, even you must agree that we've done the speeding thing to death here over the years.



AFAIK, Spinners started off in London, moved to the Cambridge area and could now be ????

Just because he is not posting off previous IP addresses doesn't mean that Telesonic isn't him trolling yet again. Whilst I appreciate you have re-banned his incarnations since the original one, anyone coming on here with 20 posts and an intimate knowledge of the dynamics of P&L makes me smell a rat.

If you tune into any of the Heart FM stations (102.8 was wyvern), you will soon understand what I mean. Once or twice a day fair enough, but not every time the adverts go on 24/7. It got my attention, now it is boiling my piss in the way Michael Winner does with the e-sure adverts


----------



## very-near (18 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> Just to insert a bit of stereotyping, shouldn't that be "down year"?



Look ewe, that's lovely


----------

