Alt.Mustardland

Thinks: Should I reply?
I agree with much of what you say, Brian, although my Thoughts on Peets are slightly Different, but these are merely "Techy", but in Peets indiaposition it would be ungrateful to criticise.
My bigger problem with the one that Smeesue recently closed is less black and white. It is not possible to follow the Management Events there, that is, we (or "I"), have no knowledge of what was so horrible that Smeesue abandoned us withot explanation beyond the fact that it distressed her; that is, abamdoned a hobby that she liked. Until some comments this week I knew little or nothing of the "Bannings" Why...? or worst, Why so secretly.. ?

I don't know what it is that makes so many friends insist on resurrecting a failed Thread, when (I think...?) that it is as easy to open an unsullied thread..
Why?
Why are people so Terrified of when Iasked about Security and telling one to Sign-up ignoring the fallability, or bugger off. (more politely, but definate). Tell us why, unless we know we cannot understand!-

But did you see what I did then.. I'm falling nto a wedge between people, and I don't want to do that... Simply opening Yet Another Board would hammer that wedge in deeper. For the same reason, I have tried to reply requests to me via Peets Posters; I am expected to explain why I worry about security - but how can I - I don't know what the problems are/were - either in Sue's or at the Mysterious Bowman. but, I'm also trying to cease using Peets as another hammer to that wedge. It must appear as A war between combatants on Peet's Turf (I have asked Peets Moderators to close that thread).

This is only a Group of friends. Even outfts I deal with who have Finacial interests on my wallet (e.g., which Gas supplier or which Insurer I select, or where I buy Petrol), None will expect me to have to explain my choice, when they themselves would not quell my interests. No. I'm doing it again: no Wedge intended. I'll start again....

.... I'm sure Angie is being as helpful as Smeesue was. Can you publish Exactly what the problen is, not to just the non-evicted posters, but all of us. Please set aside sideways unspecified implications to another name, or that X is a Spouse of Y, Just facts, ... Can't help otherwise, much as I'd like to.

If this thread had Italics or Bold text, I would be using it here.


OK, I'm back. Just to clarify.. I composed the foregoing Before Tarbh Dubh's post. - actually I thought I had posted, but TD's Post showed uo instead, and this post re-appeared as as a Preview (wth Bold and Italics, so I'll modify. Just for the record... My "today's appointments is now to be Tomorrow - That's why I'm back.

goodlookingone wrote: .
.
.
OK, I'm back. Just to clarify.. I composed the foregoing Before Tarbh Dubh's post. - actually I thought I had posted, but TD's Post showed uo instead, and this post re-appeared as as a Preview (wth Bold and Italics, so I'll modify. Just for the record... My "today's appointments is now to be Tomorrow - That's why I'm back.

GLO, I think I know what's happened there. You've been using "quick reply", which does what it says on the tin: it lets you compose a quick reply with no fancy stuff (unless you know the "bbcodes"). But there's two buttons below the reply box: "Full Editor & Preview", and "Submit". If you click "Submit", your post is posted. But if you click "Full Editor and Preview", you get what you seem to have done: you get the "full" reply editor, with all the bells and whistles (such as Bold, Italic, size, colour, and so on) ... and you can continue to compose your reply in the "full" editor. There is still a "Submit" button, that's the "send it on it's way" button.

Hope this makes sense to you.

I was never banned in SmeeSues though, I was close to it on a couple of occasions.

On the first in last November, a poster asked where 'X' had gone as she hadn't posted for several days. I sent the inquiring poster a PM, explaining that 'X' had been banned. Please note, this was a PM not, a post on thread. A couple of hours later I received a PM from a Mod (Tau, I think but, don't quote me!) explaining that I was in breach of some rule forbidding discussion of any matters relating to a poster being banned. This raised three thoughts. First of all, I was unaware of any such rule. Second, how is sending a Personal Message an issue for a Mod to be involved. Finally, it occurred to me that the poster I had sent the message to was a close friend of someone who was suspected of being a Mod. Clearly, the question had been asked, "What did Brian say about 'X's' absence?"

The second occasion occurred quite recently. I'm a school governor and I went over the top in discussing a problem related to a prospective pupil at the school. I knew precisely what I was doing and, wasn't bothered if truth were known. The way that the issue was hadn't by the local authority was scandalous and, I was angry for the child and, his Mother. The post was later removed and, I received a very polite PM from Smee Sue saying that she appreciated that I was upset but, that she felt that I was risking problems, if it was left on thread. I agreed and thought no more about it. I had after all, vented my spleen and, it was done with. Thena day later, I received a very legalistically worded e-mail again, apparently from Tau. Not the same Tau, I believe. I am quite good with identifying writing styles and this was not the same person. This e-mail, quoted from the Data Protection Act, saying that this child could have been identified from what I'd written, adding that I was also in breach of 'The School Governors Code of Practice' finally, making the point that I could have been accused of slander when I'd said that the mother wasn't very bright. In fact, she has a moderate learning difficulty and, the local authority were taking advantage of that. All this was allegedly done 'after discussions between the Mods and Sue (A blatant lie!)

To know of the Governors Code of Practice means that Tau was briefed by either another governor or a teacher, retired or otherwise.

Both incidents suggest to me that the Modding in Sue's was never independent or fair.

GLO, can I just say that I am not being critical of Peet. I'm aware that his health isn't the best. I've simply never felt comfortable there. Further, I don't think that some of those posters who decamped there a year ago were exactly welcomed with open arms.

Brian, I can clear a couple of things up. On the first one, yes - there is (or was) a very strict rule against discussing moderation (that would include suspensions) - ON THREAD - which you didn't do; you used PMs. Before I left, I did create a thread specifically for "Moderation Issues", intended to be used as a direct channel to the mods; this thread was referred to in the CoC. BUT - again since my departure - that particular thread had been locked and "hidden", leaving no channel even to ask questions!

The first communication does indeed sound like "Tau". The second one sounds like it was at least partially worded by another mod known as one of the "mods' mods" (but with no way of contacting them), in "secret" (on the "mods" board), and then just actually sent by "Tau". I won't identify the "other" mod, out of some lingering sense of respect - why I don't know, as (s)he has behaved quite despicably, and has allowed their name to be put to dangerously false accusations (quite possibly out of sheer incompetence).

I do believe your conclusion is correct - the modding was neither independent nor fair. And "Admin" threw her weight around rather too much (despite repeated protestations that "it's YOUR board, do things the way YOU want").

Just looking at the CoC, I should add: the "Delta" (Mermaid) version of the CoC did state "A suspended/banned poster should not ask people to lobby on their behalf" - but that's not what you were doing. There's more in the "Addendum" (by "Rho", also Mermaid) about suspension / banning but I'll not comment on some of it's content, I'd have to moderate myself

In my day, in general we would tend to respond to any enquiries about a "suspendee" simply stating that we could not discuss matters concerning third parties - and that was it. But not even that would apply to you.

May I speak?

I for one am glad to see friends here

Those here share our ideas about a board

It should be safe fun and a means of meeting new folk and chattering

As for the Greenlanders let em self destruct

They will

I prefer intelligent talk anyway as opposed to inane chatter about doing laundry other than en passant

That there black bull of mine is heartbroken for me about the situation

I am tougher than he thinks

Apart from a childish wish to bypass the ban to post "Yah Boo Sucks" at them I can let go of them

Peet's is good fun and I understand the problems with seeing it on mobile platforms (get her using techie terminology!) so I fully see why folk do not post there

Anyway I want ye lot to stick around and I feel sure that the liferaft here will be fun safe and gather refugees from the large chilly island when it sinks

Oooo the shadenfreude of repelling boarders the

Lastly

GLO STAY PUT!

We value your friendship

An Tarb Dubh,

I too have a good idea who the second Tau was. Whether she drafted the rather nasty post out for someone else to send or, sent herself, I know not. However, the writing style is a bit of a give away.

3Wells,
How nice to see you. Like you, I welcome friends and intelligent conversation. Sadly, the Early Thread on Sue's has gradually turned into a misery-fest. Some has been related to people with big problems in their lives but, some has also been generated by people who problems a minor or non-existent. There have been days when I've gone in to the thread early in the morning and been greeted by a group of posters that were a real downer. In such cases, I've simply left. I easily get depressed these days and don't need other people's' depressing posts.

As I said earlier today, I remember the days when the Early thread was mixture of trivia, reminiscence, fun and, intelligent conversation. It's lost so much of that. Worse still, Bowmanland seems to started off in the same vein.

I've blotted my copy book in Bowmanland today and, am unlikely to be welcomed back with open arms. I'm so happy to be in here.

I'm sure that you're made of sterner stuff than Ebony Bull believes but, I still order you to take care.

GLO, just echoing 3Wells comments; please stay.

Thank you so much BC

I took the view years ago that I could be a miseryguts and bewail my health problems

OR

Slap on the smile and guess what

You will make friends all over the place

I try to laugh at my health issues in the hope folk join in seeing the faint ridiculous humour in a daft woman with balance issues falling over in a supermarket head first into the freezer and lying amongst the fish fingers giggling

Things like that

My aim is to have fun meet and chatter to folk while exercising my brain (what's left of it!)

Pleasure is all mine dear Wellsy. There are enough sad things occurring in the world and, we need an escape. I'm aware that people have problems; health, family, monetary etc. For heaven's sake I've had some of those myself. In such cases, I would look for a diversion. When I returned to work after a few days off after my Father died suddenly, many fellow managers and even shop-floor staff came up to me express their condolences. However, after that it was back to normal. Just what I wanted.

BTW, I asked for my Bowmanland account to be disabled. There will be no way back from that.

Re: falling over in supermarkets, couldn't Ebony Bull carry a cabbage leaf in his pocket and, when you fall gracefully (That's an Artistic Merit score of 4.9 from the Russian Judge.) simply place the said leaf by your foot. These supermarkets would pay thousands to avoid you suing them for negligence. You get a giggle and a few grand. I call that a result.

I think it's time to "sink-hole" Proboards from the Wells/Bull network - it's just depressing. Brian, I see Angie's saying you requested that your account be deleted and that she had "complied with his wishes.". No, she hasn't. Perhaps she intends to, but she certainly hasn't - so much for "honest and transparent" . Ah well, perhaps you should keep your account alive (actually, according to the members list, you have two: the one you have been posting with, which you actually created in March 2013, and a new one you created on Saturday but never posted with, your 'pooter probably just remembered your original one and logged you on to it). Delete the one you posted with, but keep your other one in reserve so you can keep an eye on them - that'll fool them

I have said before, and will repeat again, there should be no need for "either/or", anyone should be able to feel comfortable and free to join in on any of the boards. But "greenland" seems to have imported the problem of "egos" from "deadland".

I do understand people having problems with the presentation and format in Peets, especially on phones / phablets, but it's worth persevering; there are tweakable settings, and I have got 3Wells' phone reasonably usable for her now (so long as it's in "landscape", that is). If you're having trouble finding the tweak knobs, I'll see if I can do one of my "recipe" help sheets.

Yes, having a few problems nothing like yours of course, but realised that if you laugh and be happy, it doesn't make you any worse, but you feel happier about it.

Another Late Lurk. Thanks to rwo of you to asking me to stay put. Much thanks for that. I will stay, but I'm a bit Busy with other things. I'm inclined to do nowt abot whater threads develop on Mustardland.. It will all wait umtill I can ream the junk from my mind, but I'll be staying awhile.

Judith Littlewood is questioning you, TD, in Facebook A friend of The Lovely Lulu.. Not that I'm pushing you to reply, Just wondering who she is. Must be somebody with a nom-de-wotsit known to us.

Goodnight each.

Hi GLO. Yes, I noticed that - I won't be replying. She *could* be "judithl". The reason I won't be replying is simple enough; Angie may have been "accepted ... as administrator", but actually that's just as "AN administrator"; she's not the "owner" (user number 1), so it's still not "their" board. Bowman could show up ... and could formally hand the board over to Angie. Or not

I see they want their

No... Don't tell me... I had all that politiables when I worked. (and you will be surprised (or maybe not) as to which politicians were useful and those that were as as useful as a Chocolate fireguard).

I'm glad you're staying, GLO. I didn't ask you to because you are free to decide for yourself. The Duke of Wellington was a useful politician - but his usefulness was limited in civilian life. (I'm doing a Future Learn course on Waterloo).

Thanks for your FB message ATB.

But The Duke of Boots Was the origin of a good pub which was a meeting place of another group I was involved in, so He was of some use. ..

Incidentally, His name became the Name of a Railway station. I was present at a discussion of "Naming" Railway Loco's with the names of National Hero's.. Someone baulked at a Train coming in to Waerloo with The Front Loco from GB ownershiop Being called "Wellington", and the Tail Loco from a European Shed being "Napolean". No idea what they eventually called them.

Good afternoon all.

Tried to log in to Bowmanland as you suggested EB but, it produced the message, "You Have Been Banned From This Forum". That's a bit of a cheek when I asked for my membership to be disabled. I shall miss some of my friend but, I'm happy with my decision.

Had a bit of a fall yesterday. Not asking for sympathy or, making a big deal of how awful my life is. Just wanted it out in the open.

Went to an event at our local library last evening. It was a presentation on the Gunpowder Plot and, Holbeache House. The aforementioned house is about a mile, as the crow flies from Castle Cravat. However, it is where several of the plotters holed up and, were captured after Guy Fawkes spilled the beans. Mind you being subjected to the rack, can have devestating effect on a bloke's ability to hold out.

The guy doing the presentation was a local man called, John Sparry. He is a trumpeter in a trad jazz band and runs a second hand book shop. He is a real personality and, his presentation was not only interesting but, entertaining too.

Brian, no surprises ... I think the "tutorial" has got as far as how to wield the ban-hammer, and that's about it! There's some more on the mod-message you got from Sue's, but that will keep for the moment ... other things to do. Sorry to hear of your fall, there's enough injuries and things going around as it is!

Back to the "non-Greenland" thread now, it's much nicer

It's nice to do the shock! horror! thing sometimes though. Poor Angie, Sue was fairly experienced and could keep the Proboards people in their place, but she is probably learning from first principles. I get the impression that Proboards are a little to the Right of Ghenghis Khan. Though the more I know about GK, they are probably quite a bit to the Right. Anyway, I feel quite sorry for Angie, not enough to want to participate, but there are elements driving her that will take quite a bit of reining in. I think you're well out of it Brian.

Well, I'm not going to be saying much more on the subject - personally I couldn't care less but I am quite upset at 3Wells' treatment. Several cheery greetings, but she gets "banned" and her posts deleted, after being directly attacked by Scarlett and having the temerity to respond. I see Scarlett has also deleted her "attack" posts, perhaps she thinks this means she can deny it! However I do have transcripts, and she may or may not know that the Proboards forum security log records all actions such as deleting posts - and the security log can't be deleted. Not even by "admin". There's only one way that I know of to clear the security log, and that's by deleting the entire forum (even then Proboards probably keep an archive somewhere).

Brian, I'll tell you the "legalistic" threats you got from "Tau" were almost certainly drafted in part (or the basis provided) by the "mods' mod" known as "Theta". I lost all respect for this lady when she allowed her name to be put to a "sticky"/"announcement" post ("Message from Admin and the Mods") that contained extremely offensive and utterly unfounded accusations as "excuses" - and it was also clear that the "mods' mods" were essentially dysfunctional. However, Theta has in the past provided valuable assistance to some members, so I remain a little reluctant to reveal her "board" name openly.

Now, something more jolly: would everyone please join me in sending a big Hello to someone:

Hello Maggie!!!!

Yes, Maggie ("maggiesaes") is keeping an eye on here, it looks like she has this thread bookmarked! Maggie, you can always drop in and say Hi, you are allowed post here as "guest" (subject to pre-moderation). I see you have a shiny new "Code of Conduct", it's a pity it's invisible! Why not just post a link to this site in your mods' staff room board?

[Edited to add: CoC does now seem to have been made accessible! Interesting to note, there's nothing in it that either I (as EB), or 3Wells, could be considered to have violated. But someone else (guess who) certainly has]