Metropol

Gavin Scott wrote:

Toxin On Slum wrote:A tad below the belt. No?

No.

Why are you in a mood, Gavin?

Is there something you'd like to share with us that's playing on your mind?

J2 wrote:Why are you in a mood, Gavin?

Is there something you'd like to share with us that's playing on your mind?

Nothing in particular James. Purely a stimulus/response situation.

But then the principle of action/consequence seems not to be as well understood as I had assumed.

Gavin Scott wrote:

J2 wrote:Why are you in a mood, Gavin?

Is there something you'd like to share with us that's playing on your mind?

Nothing in particular James. Purely a stimulus/response situation.

But then the principle of action/consequence seems not to be as well understood as I had assumed.

Maybe the lack of "Jamez" has caused a vacuum which some members feel they need to fill. Quite unsuccessfully. I would have thought James H would be the best candidate. He's been emulating me for about a year.

I hate serious Metropol.

Lets get back to talking about Nick Harvey adverts.

Gavin Scott wrote:I'm sorry Mr Prout, you DID directly imply impropriety on the part of another named forum member. I have little or no interest about heresay relating to comments which may have appeared elsewhere - and this forum will NOT be a discussion ground for them or any related comment thereof.

I am a well-known supporter of Jamez/J2.

That said, I can totally back up Gavin's version of events. An unmistakable and upsetting slur was made against another member of TVF with absolutely no shred of evidence or proof.

Gavin Scott wrote:I will be prepared to usher in a grand new age of responsible posting on the understanding that you don't dismiss your earlier actions. Johnnyboy and I didn't intervene for "nothing".

I certainly did not intervene for "nothing".

The nature of the slur has already been estabished in this thread.

What would happen if someone were to come across that user's name and come to the conclusion that they were what they were "tongue-in-cheek" accused of being?

Put it this way, -atricians have been attacked before because people did not understand how that differed from -ophiles.

We all have the right to have a seperate and private identity on the internet (and on these forums while I am a mod of it).

I know my hands are slightly dirty on this as I have not been a model of good behaviour always on this place, even as a mod. I am embarassed about a stupid and childish thread I made a few days ago and offered to stand down as mod to Gavin over it.

If we can all keep each other in check, we all win.

So are we now banned from talking about anymore?

why would you want to keep ripping the piss out of him? get a fucking life man.

J2 wrote:So are we now banned from talking about anymore?

We are banned from discussing anything about any other living human being that could land us in court or that could put them in harm's way.

Dr Lobster* wrote:why would you want to keep ripping the piss out of him? get a fucking life man.

I don't. I just wanted to ask if mentioning him was now forbidden.

J2 wrote:

Dr Lobster* wrote:why would you want to keep ripping the piss out of him? get a fucking life man.

I don't. I just wanted to ask if mentioning him was now forbidden.

well, taking into account the events of the last few days i assumed your brain would have finally engaged and the answer to that question was a given.

Frankly Jamez I'm truly bored of you now. What was vaguely funny years ago is just not now and this dramatic "return" to the forum after leaving is a) predictible and b) a testament to your overinflated ego and narcissistic personality tendencies, along with your attempts to shape people's opinions of you through bizarre alter-egos. Your contributions have been almost entirely worthless and your presence on this forum is as a troll at best. It's significant that, despite your insistence that Metropol/TVForum is "full of geeks" and worthless, you have AGAIN re-registered, proving how utterly dependent you are on this community. And, as if that isn't enough, you have yet again returned to your "old ways" by posting an intentionally unflattering caricature of Luxton by way of an indirect insult -- so much for "turning over a new leaf". It's really ironic that you share so many of the personality traits of those who you so zealously mocked in the past and one must wonder therefore about the stability of your own personality.