Information request on Party Policy
- This topic has 53 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Can anyone explain what the big pipe, post 44 is all about? Moreover, what has this to do with the thread? It's not the pipesmokers almanac! Steve.
steve colborn wrote:Can anyone explain what the big pipe, post 44 is all about?OGW posts a reply which says he cannot reply. It reminded me of the painting of a pipe by Rene Magritte with the caption "This is not a pipe"It was an attempt at humour to lighten up the situation, but failed and probably besides the point…Though clearly OGW is not banned..
"It was an attempt at humour to lighten up the situation, but failed and probably besides the point…"You got that right. And clearly you are not banned either, even though you posted the above irrelevance. A case, I think, of Moderator heed thyself, would be appropriate.
Well, obviously everyone is of topic so surely I will not be suspended for asking why a party member was allowed to launch a personal attack on me without receiving suspension.While you prepare an answer could you inform me if I would be suspended if I called you a liar?
DJP wrote:steve colborn wrote:Can anyone explain what the big pipe, post 44 is all about?OGW posts a reply which says he cannot reply. It reminded me of the painting of a pipe by Rene Magritte with the caption "This is not a pipe"It was an attempt at humour to lighten up the situation, but failed and probably besides the point…Though clearly OGW is not banned..
DJP/AdminI see you clearly fail to grasp the intention behind the following forum guidelines. Before posting please consider the following:Will your post contribute? Does a one line response really add to the discussion? Will other users like to read what you are posting? If you are offering an opinion, give reasons. If you are asking a question, provide information. If you are sharing a link or article, say why. If you fail to get what the guidelines are there for, then how can others be held accountable for their inability to follow the guidelines?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Well, obviously everyone is of topic so surely I will not be suspended for asking why a party member was allowed to launch a personal attack on me without receiving suspension.You call that a personal attack? You must have lived a sheltered life if you call that an attack. And since you continue to spread lies/misinformation/untruths/bullshit call it whatever you will, about me surely I'm the one who is under "personal attack" I would really like you to answer the question about how much responsibility you think you have for the situation on this forum which has been going on since October. Do you feel you are beyond reproach? Stop being so petty and for all our sakes please, please, grow up.
This topic has been thoroughly derailed and has therefore been temporarily locked. All comments in breach of the rules have be removed.
ALB wrote:Come off it, this is well over the top. This is not the drift of this thread nor a logical conclusion from what has been said on it. You are letting your anger at being called a liar get the better of you. Ex-members regularly rejoin and nothing is stopping you defending the ex-member who was called a class traitor.Do you still think I am over the top?Well, I think I am correct in my original post.Following a vitriolic attack on ex comrade colman there has now been a vitriolic attack on two other ex members by the same cowardly member. And he has received no moderation.There are members in your party deliberately destroying it from within and anyone who suggests it to you is suspended from the forum.I personally know steve colborn and he has placed socialism on the agenda in his local town thro his constant hard work over 30 years. He has not been on historic walks or used party funds for new chairs, he has used his own resources to to place YOUR party on the map and your treatment of him is an absolute disgrace.
- The topic ‘Information request on Party Policy’ is closed to new replies.