Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 16:41

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 13:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Hanbo... wrote:
New message on there now. Jan 17 2005, 04:53 PM
Quote:
It seems that huge swathes of the net cannot access these forums at the moment, and there is no rhyme or reason to it??!!

I'm able to read the forums from home but not at work.

Any explanation what is wrong??

Thanks


No reply yet.


Seeing as JJ is now frequenting these here forums, could he or someone in the know offer an explanation as to why the poor unfortunate poster of the only two messages to make it into the forum during the 'down time' (who happens to be a friend of mine) was rewarded A YEAR'S suspension for his efforts??

Is this another error, or is he under suspicion of something because he'd like to know!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 16:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
r11co wrote:
Seeing as JJ is now frequenting these here forums, could he or someone in the know offer an explanation as to why the poor unfortunate poster of the only two messages to make it into the forum during the 'down time' (who happens to be a friend of mine) was rewarded A YEAR'S suspension for his efforts??


Do we know what the user name was? Do we know what the "offence" was?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 19:34 
Offline
Former Police Officer
Former Police Officer

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 21:42
Posts: 186
Location: Notts.
SafeSpeed wrote:
r11co wrote:
Seeing as JJ is now frequenting these here forums, could he or someone in the know offer an explanation as to why the poor unfortunate poster of the only two messages to make it into the forum during the 'down time' (who happens to be a friend of mine) was rewarded A YEAR'S suspension for his efforts??


Do we know what the user name was? Do we know what the "offence" was?



The post I quoted is still there, plus a humorous reply.

I omitted the posters name in the quote on here.


There was nothing offensive in the quote, simply an enquiry about the problem with the forum, so why the suspension ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 14:42 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Hanbo... wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
r11co wrote:
Seeing as JJ is now frequenting these here forums, could he or someone in the know offer an explanation as to why the poor unfortunate poster of the only two messages to make it into the forum during the 'down time' (who happens to be a friend of mine) was rewarded A YEAR'S suspension for his efforts??


Do we know what the user name was? Do we know what the "offence" was?



The post I quoted is still there, plus a humorous reply.

I omitted the posters name in the quote on here.


There was nothing offensive in the quote, simply an enquiry about the problem with the forum, so why the suspension ?



You only get banned from the forum if you get abusive, I am sure Paul would do th e same to me if I called him names, accused him of lying, infact being just rude. No need for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 14:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
JJ wrote:
You only get banned from the forum if you get abusive


In that case why is steve still there?? Countless times he has called people 'stupid', 'manipulative', or described their considered words as 'rubbish' without so much as a justification.

Double standards JJ - something that doesn't apply here!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 15:04 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
JJ wrote:
You only get banned from the forum if you get abusive, I am sure Paul would do th e same to me if I called him names, accused him of lying, infact being just rude. No need for it.

Go on then JJ, why did I get a ban? Go and have a look at the thread in question...

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=877&st=15

As far as I can see, all I did was wade in and offer a clearer interpretation on the semantics of what had been said. Steve made a statement purporting to be factual that was proven to be untrue, and I merely pointed this out. What does it matter what nomenclature I used. I described it as "a lie" which fitted perfectly with the dictionary definition I later posted, I'd still say it was the mot juste!

Are you saying that I would have escaped censure if I had used a more politically correct alternative to "lie", such as "untruth", "falsehood", "deceit", or even Churchill's wonderfully opaque "Terminological Inexactitude"?

No, what it looks like from here is that once again events proved Steve to be wrong. And as usual, instead of simply holding his hand up and apologising for his original false statement, he has to try and save face. In this case it led to a series of unreasonable demands for retractions of perfectly truthful statements. Finally he lashes out by banning three members merely for "getting at him".

If this is typical of his balanced approach, then I have to say I find his tales of how he used to have his "finger on the button" somewhat alarming! :lol:

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 18:28 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
JT wrote:
JJ wrote:
You only get banned from the forum if you get abusive, I am sure Paul would do th e same to me if I called him names, accused him of lying, infact being just rude. No need for it.

Go on then JJ, why did I get a ban? Go and have a look at the thread in question...

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=877&st=15

As far as I can see, all I did was wade in and offer a clearer interpretation on the semantics of what had been said. Steve made a statement purporting to be factual that was proven to be untrue, and I merely pointed this out. What does it matter what nomenclature I used. I described it as "a lie" which fitted perfectly with the dictionary definition I later posted, I'd still say it was the mot juste!

Are you saying that I would have escaped censure if I had used a more politically correct alternative to "lie", such as "untruth", "falsehood", "deceit", or even Churchill's wonderfully opaque "Terminological Inexactitude"?

No, what it looks like from here is that once again events proved Steve to be wrong. And as usual, instead of simply holding his hand up and apologising for his original false statement, he has to try and save face. In this case it led to a series of unreasonable demands for retractions of perfectly truthful statements. Finally he lashes out by banning three members merely for "getting at him".

If this is typical of his balanced approach, then I have to say I find his tales of how he used to have his "finger on the button" somewhat alarming! :lol:


Think it was insisting that he was a liar that did it. He seems to get a bit upset about that.

As for fingers on the button he was just one of about 30 who had the fingers on the button his was just the last one in the sequence.


JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 18:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
JJ wrote:
Think it was insisting that he was a liar that did it. He seems to get a bit upset about that.

JJ

Thanks for replying. Much appreciated.

Don't recall making that accusation though. I did reiterate the previous observation - ie that one specific statement he made was a lie - but I never called him a liar, and indeed I even added a specific qualification that his lie wasn't intentional.

Maybe I'm too logical, but to me a statement is either true or false, I don't get this concept where he admits it was false yet claims it wasn't a lie!

Perhaps he's stumbled on an exciting new mathematical concept here; who knows, maybe if he publishes his new theory quickly enough they might even name it in his honour, and future students of boolean algebra will talk of statements being either "true", "false", or "Callaghan".... :lol:

Oops! Bit of satire creeping in there, sorry. That'll be another fortnight... :cry:

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 19:04 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
JT wrote:
Perhaps he's stumbled on an exciting new mathematical concept here; who knows, maybe if he publishes his new theory quickly enough they might even name it in his honour, and future students of boolean algebra will talk of statements being either "true", "false", or "Callaghan".... :lol:


Actually, there are three states - "true", "false" and "don't care".

The latter state, for which you can also read "inconsequential", is considered as being far more important than the other two in today's world of pseudoscience.

Regards
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 19:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Pete317 wrote:
JT wrote:
Perhaps he's stumbled on an exciting new mathematical concept here; who knows, maybe if he publishes his new theory quickly enough they might even name it in his honour, and future students of boolean algebra will talk of statements being either "true", "false", or "Callaghan".... :lol:


Actually, there are three states - "true", "false" and "don't care".

Sorry. Despite it being a few years since I last drew a Karnaugh map, I was already aware of this. I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 19:44 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
JT wrote:
Sorry. Despite it being a few years since I last drew a Karnaugh map, I was already aware of this. I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:


Just me being my pedantic self :twisted:

Your satire didn't go amiss though, and I do like your last point here. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 19:46 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JT wrote:
I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:


Whatever would de Morgan have said? :D

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 19:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
SafeSpeed wrote:
JT wrote:
I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:


Whatever would de Morgan have said? :D


I think that would depend on whether or not he'd been 'pinged' by the CSCP.
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 20:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Pete317 wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JT wrote:
I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:


Whatever would de Morgan have said? :D


I think that would depend on whether or not he'd been 'pinged' by the CSCP.
:wink:


Ahhh... a race hazard.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 21:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
SafeSpeed wrote:
Ahhh... a race hazard.


You latched on pretty quickly...

Gotta stop this now :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 00:24 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
SafeSpeed wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JT wrote:
I was just hoping you'd all allow me a little "satirical licence", inasmuch as the state of Callaghan being synonymous with don't care... :wink:


Whatever would de Morgan have said? :D


I think that would depend on whether or not he'd been 'pinged' by the CSCP.
:wink:


Ahhh... a race hazard.



depends how fast he was going! Im most impressed guys CSCP must be the only partnership that has its own forum on an Anti-camera site. Paul its much appreciated

JJ :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 02:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 13:03
Posts: 23
Location: Lancashire
JJ wrote:
depends how fast he was going! Im most impressed guys CSCP must be the only partnership that has its own forum on an Anti-camera site. Paul its much appreciated

JJ :lol:


You will find that any moderator who promotes common sense is appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
JJ wrote:
Im most impressed guys CSCP must be the only partnership that has its own forum on an Anti-camera site. Paul its much appreciated


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, the irony....


Last edited by r11co on Sat Jan 29, 2005 21:33, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
JJ wrote:
Im most impressed guys CSCP must be the only partnership that has its own forum on an Anti-camera site. Paul its much appreciated


I think the main reason for this is that the CSCP is the only partnership to operate a forum system that is open to the public.

I've certainly not come across another. For that I salute the CSCP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
Im most impressed guys CSCP must be the only partnership that has its own forum on an Anti-camera site.


Of course, I only set it up when CSCP managed their forum so badly that it looked as if it might break up altogether.

JJ wrote:
Paul its much appreciated


Thanks. You're most welcome.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.371s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]