Metropol

Chubbs, you do know that actively monitoring someone's youtube activities can be considered rather creepy, right?

Banned again. *SIGH* I'm now officially suicidal.

This time it was..?

Making a throwaway comment about Jane Hill being a vain person and the BBC having a deep conservative backdrop. :roll:

JonathanTVF wrote:Making a throwaway comment about Jane Hill being a vain person and the BBC having a deep conservative backdrop. :roll:

Neither of them were throwaway comments. They were big bold statements which you reiterated just for good measure. They also went further than you are suggesting here - although I'd be obliged if you don't repeat either suggestion on this board, please.

You made your points and got banned - fair enough. You can't really shake off the responsibility now, Jonathan.

I did try to advise you regarding your posts, but you were hell-bent on making your point.

I get the feeling that internet moderation is really, a jobsworth duty. What I said really wasn't as serious and interesting as you are making out.

JonathanTVF wrote:I get the feeling that internet moderation is really, a jobsworth duty. What I said really wasn't as serious and interesting as you are making out.

Jobsworth? Hardly. Do I really strike you as that sort of man?

On a personal level I don't like reading comments about some of the talent. Call me a sensitive old fool if you like but I don't like the idea that they read along and assume they are loathed by all in quite the way some members make out. This has perhaps a lot to do with being a performer and having a certain sensitivity to reading reviews. Not that I recall a bad one about myself, come to think of it.

Putting all that aside there is a serious issue here and that is one of libel and defamation. Ho-ho-ho hysterical though it might seem it isn't your balls on the plate when the board gets slapped with a writ, is it? Don't for one minute kid yourself that it hasn't already happened. It has and it will again, no doubt.

Web fora owners have the same weight of law upon them as any other form of publisher. "If you can't prove it, don't post it" is a reasonable rule of thumb. Obviously that is irrelevant if you're speculating about what colour of lighting gel you reckon they are using in the studio, but when you make a claim that could be *damaging* to an individual or organisation's reputation you've got to damn well make sure you've got the facts on your side.

Whether you are claiming someone in the public eye has a drug habit, or you claim an organisation is guilty of institutional racism then those become serious matters.

I don't know how else to explain this so you might understand. I'm running the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum.

Do you see the point I'm making or not?

tvmercia wrote:

Godfather wrote:Is tvmercia dead?

not quite

He lives!
I just haven't seen a post by you for ages.

Yes. Clearly the only reason somebody would stop posting on Metropol would be if they were dead.

Jovis wrote:Yes. Clearly the only reason somebody would stop posting on Metropol would be if they were dead.

Not a fair assumption. The undead walk amongst us

Jovis wrote:Clearly the only reason somebody would stop posting on Metropol would be if they were dead.

Exactly.

I don't suppose Chubby's Mummy and Daddy ever take him away on holiday for a week or two.

I wish they'd take him away and explain tombstoning to him at Durdle Door.

It would save us any more of his brainless postings.