Freechat

John, if Nool contacts you telling you to remove something and you accommodate him and do as he asks, isn't he technically moderating Freechat then?
We know his criteria of anyone who doesn't agree with his 2+2=5 ethos is an enemy of the club.

Also John is it true that Nooly has bottled it a bit and has now got his master to contact you?

RegGreen wrote:

This is proberly more like the senairo
Brent’s secretary been on the phone again to him
Giving him grief more likely if anythink Can’t see JL taking orders from porky some how .but I do see porky slinging /pointing crap out to Brent though every 5 minutes so he complains instead can see that one happening all day long...devious creature that oaf in fact a very devious creature indeed

Wow Brent's subcontracting out his enforcement work? Nooly could be out of a job soon

beesrus wrote:

You're as bad as Newell, with your real names thing. ATD is social media too, just like facebook. You don't use your real name here You're talking nonsense as usual. Have you any idea of the things that happen to social workers and their friends when they get tracked down on social media by the wrong sort ?
By the way, I've never crossed dressed, not my scene, but one of my brothers did from the age of twelve. Got a problem with that, dinosaur ? I haven't.

You make Angry Andy seem like Norman Wisdom.

As bad as Newell? Really? What is my "real name thing". I haven't expressed an opinion, merely citing Facebook's policy which you have decided to flaunt in the case of Freechat. Once again you're making up my 'viewpoint' to suit yourself. You really do have to start sticking to the facts and not living in fantasy land.

As for your brother - who cares?

Can we organise a fundraiser to get Rickler + Bees some couples therapy?

alannotivvy wrote:

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

"Facebook is a community where everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. This makes it so that you always know who you're connecting with."

How's it going Victoria?  Cross dressing today are we?

I now want to be known as Loretta

alannotivvy wrote:

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

"Facebook is a community where everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. This makes it so that you always know who you're connecting with."

How's it going Victoria?  Cross dressing today are we?

I now want to be known as Loretta

alannotivvy wrote:

Rickler wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Facebook has never insisted on REAL names being used on it's social media, and nor should they. There's enough crap regarding breaking privacy laws already. I know of many government workers who deal with problematic clients that are advised by their employers not to use their full names on social media for all manner of long known issues, particularly health and social workers.

"Facebook is a community where everyone uses the name they go by in everyday life. This makes it so that you always know who you're connecting with."

How's it going Victoria?  Cross dressing today are we?

I now want to be known as Loretta

Last word from me, as I’m having a very nice day looking at waterfalls and geysers here in Iceland.
Ian Newell has absolutely no influence - zero, zilch, nada - on Free Chat content, nor does anyone else.
The only way anything will ever be deleted is for a justifiable complaint to be made, which happens less than a couple of times a month.
When posts need to be deleted, we’ll explain why.
This week, we’ve needed to take an extra step to mute a member that would not accept that request to be more moderate in their postings.
Back to the Icelandic scenery. Takk!

Rickler wrote:

You make Angry Andy seem like Norman Wisdom.

As bad as Newell?  Really?  What is my "real name thing".  I haven't expressed an opinion, merely citing Facebook's policy which you have decided to flaunt in the case of Freechat.   Once again you're making up my 'viewpoint' to suit yourself.   You really do have to start sticking to the facts and not living in fantasy land.

As for your brother - who cares?

I'm not angry, just firm. I don't like bullies of any sort, full stop, just like that online creep you mention. You have seen fit to bully a couple of people on here, and then you made the mistake of targeting me. When you do, I will respond. Now, for some weird reason out of the blue, you attack cross dressers. Are you trying to "out" a facebook user like Newell has always done ?
You really are peas in a pod, you and Newell.... he sends white feathers to dying people, you tell people to feck off and die.

John_Lloyd wrote:

Last word from me, as I’m having a very nice day looking at waterfalls and geysers here in Iceland.
Ian Newell has absolutely no influence - zero, zilch, nada - on Free Chat content, nor does anyone else.
The only way anything will ever be deleted is for a justifiable complaint to be made, which happens less than a couple of times a month.
When posts need to be deleted, we’ll explain why.
This week, we’ve needed to take an extra step to mute a member that would not accept that request to be more moderate in their postings.
Back to the Icelandic scenery. Takk!

So posting to say someone has a Liverpool shirt the same as Ian Rush was wearing in his man cave is enough to mute a member? if it was offensive, then why is it still there?
Answers on a postcard from Eyjafjallajökull please.

I've known John Lloyd for something like twenty years. He's thoughtful, intelligent, and very much his own man - which, of course, is what got him banned from the other place. To suggest that he's being dictated to by anybody is nonsense: it would go against the principles of Freechat itself, and is deeply insulting to him.

Yes, there are some bad people around. No, not everybody is bad, and this branding of a good person is bang out of order.

Peggy, neither you or JL, GC and anyone else I can think of, helped Central Park by adding weight to the planning application, that more parking was needed outside of the park and ride.

You fell into their trap. I would suggest that Hopwood/Brent/hallett et al knew a residents' moan about the lack of park and ride parking would help a further encroachment into Central Park, that wasn't included in the initial plan B application.

beesrus wrote:

Peggy, neither you or JL, GC and anyone else I can think of, helped Central Park by adding weight to the planning application, that more parking was needed outside of the park and ride.

You fell into their trap. I would suggest that Hopwood/Brent/hallett et al knew a residents' moan about the lack of park and ride parking would help a further encroachment into Central Park, that wasn't included in the initial plan B application.

Oh piss off. That's got nothing to do with the discussion on this thread and I did not fall into anybody's trap.

If the developers wanted people to object so they could revise their plan, they could of course have submitted the revised plan in the first place. If the developers wanted people to object, they should have told their attack dogs not to start barking within seconds of those objections being published.

And if you don't get the need for park and ride facilities to reduce the environmental impact of driving across the whole city, then you're really not as green as you like to suggest.

beesrus wrote:

Peggy, neither you or JL, GC and anyone else I can think of, helped Central Park by adding weight to the planning application, that more parking was needed outside of the park and ride.

You fell into their trap. I would suggest that Hopwood/Brent/hallett et al knew a residents' moan about the lack of park and ride parking would help a further encroachment into Central Park, that wasn't included in the initial plan B application.

Very good point Bees something I hadnt considered

beesrus wrote:

John Lloyd is no street fighter. He will always give way to bullying, and Newell knows it. He also knows ATD is quite, quite different.

Appalling comments. Sort it out!

Peggy wrote:

beesrus wrote:

Peggy, neither you or JL, GC and anyone else I can think of, helped Central Park by adding weight to the planning application, that more parking was needed outside of the park and ride.

You fell into their trap. I would suggest that Hopwood/Brent/hallett et al knew a residents' moan about the lack of park and ride parking would help a further encroachment into Central Park, that wasn't included in the initial plan B application.

Oh piss off. That's got nothing to do with the discussion on this thread and I did not fall into anybody's trap.

If the developers wanted people to object so they could revise their plan, they could of course have submitted the revised plan in the first place. If the developers wanted people to object, they should have told their attack dogs not to start barking within seconds of those objections being published.

And if you don't get the need for park and ride facilities to reduce the environmental impact of driving across the whole city, then you're really not as green as you like to suggest.

Charming. In view of the piss off comment, I'd wager I'm a lot greener than you in my life. Have you ever thought of catching a bus to shop or to work ? or cycling for that matter ? Wider green issues are not served by making sure sufficient car parking is available for every human activity. You're just advocating for the private car, full stop.

I'm pointing out, as I did at the time, that opposition to the plans on parking shortages in particular was counter-productive. That was my view then, as it still is. A good example of polite naivety when dealing with creeps with sliding agendas.

Elias wrote:

beesrus wrote:

John Lloyd is no street fighter. He will always give way to bullying, and Newell knows it. He also knows ATD is quite, quite different.

Appalling comments. Sort it out!

What's appalling about my comments ? I would have thought it was a compliment to say someone was not a street fighter.

beesrus wrote:

Elias wrote:

beesrus wrote:

John Lloyd is no street fighter. He will always give way to bullying, and Newell knows it. He also knows ATD is quite, quite different.

Appalling comments. Sort it out!

What's appalling about my comments ? I would have thought it was a compliment to say someone was not a street fighter.

Clueless.  No self awareness whatsoever....

Hint.

beesrus wrote:

He will always give way to bullying,

You're basically calling JL a coward.

Come on now, no fighting! It makes us look like Pasoti.

Leave the fighting to Graiser.

beesrus wrote:

Elias wrote:

beesrus wrote:

John Lloyd is no street fighter. He will always give way to bullying, and Newell knows it. He also knows ATD is quite, quite different.

Appalling comments. Sort it out!

What's appalling about my comments ? I would have thought it was a compliment to say someone was not a street fighter.

Could be interpreted in that way. Not really a ringing endorsement to say that someone "always gives in to bullying" though.

"Always" is probably a bit strong, and no, I'm not calling the guy a coward. Given his sensibilities, I think he's doing an admirable job with his relatively new "forum" which was needed on the Argyle High St. But there are ways to manipulate nice good guys like that without them even knowing, there just are, that's life. We're talking very manipulative people, biters and scratchers. Not to be underestimated.

mouldyoldgoat wrote:

Bob Crow wrote:

John, if Nool contacts you telling you to remove something and you accommodate him and do as he asks, isn't he technically moderating Freechat then?
We know his criteria of anyone who doesn't agree with his 2+2=5 ethos is an enemy of the club.

Also John is it true that Nooly has bottled it a bit and has now got his master to contact you?

Bob, this all fits a pattern.
When a site threatens Mr Newell's perfect Argyle world he goes on the attack.
This happened when the old Argyle talk was started. He closed it down.
ATD was started and we have had many attacks and threats to sue or close us down. All done by patsies of his.
Freechat is now the target because it is the biggest threat so far because the potential audience is millions.
What is new is the attack is being done on a different site from the one targeted.
You obviously have a problem with JL and FC or you wouldn't have started this thread.
As far as I can see, the only one under orders is you.

I'll allude once again, i have no problem with JL or freechat. I was just questioning where these complaints about the Nool and Brent threads on Pasoti originate from because if posts are being deleted from FC on Nools say so to JL, then isn't he in fact moderating it?

You do have a problem with him or you wouldn't keep posting the same line over and over again on a number of threads, that Newell has influence on FC.

JL has full control of FC as far as I know and what I have been told by people that know him, he is his own man. This has been said by people on this thread.

And I will say again.

As far as I can see, the only person under orders is you.

From what I can see on this thread a number of experienced and knowledgeable posters have come forward to support JL and his character- this continued assertion that JL is controlled by Newell is becoming a tad boring.