Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Forum rules
Shaker

Rules of the Forum

Welcome to the forum.

We’re very glad you’ve found us and we want you to enjoy your time here.  

If at any time you have any problems, worries, concerns or suggestions, contact the moderators and/or admin, who are always happy to help.  

There are not too many rules, but all members are asked to read, learn and inwardly digest the following points carefully in order to make posting here safe and enjoyable for everyone.



1) This forum is for members of all religious persuasions, which means those of some religious affiliation and none at all. Inevitably this will give rise to debate, but however full and frank the exchange of ideas may be, please keep it civil and courteous. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others or which are considered to harass another poster may be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite. How messages which may be deemed to be directly insulting to another member of the forum are dealt with can never be codified in advance and has to remain a matter for the judgement of the admin/moderation team depending on the nature of the offence. However, warnings - either official or unofficial - can be given: in the case of official warnings a maximum of three will be given before a permanent and automatic ban.

No area of the forum is out of bounds to anyone, but the Prayer Room and Bible Study sections are not for debate on the efficacy or otherwise of prayer and on scriptural references. For critical debate on these issues please use (for example) All Faiths & None.

The Bear Pit is a sub-forum which is rather more 'hands-off' than the rest of the forum as a whole. This does not mean that 'anything goes,' rather that - as the name implies - substantially more robust, rough-and-tumble debate is allowed and strong language usually overlooked (unless this involves the sort of racist, sexist or homophobic language as detailed in 2) below, which remain prohibited across the forum as a whole). If this type of debate is not to your taste and/or you are likely to be offended by strong language, please steer clear of the Bear Pit.

2) Following on from 1), please do not post – either directly or by external link - any material which is pornographic or obscene, or material which is racist, sexist or homophobic in nature. There is no desire to stifle free speech or free expression, but by the same token this forum is as subject to the laws relating to libel and hate speech, for example, as anything and anywhere else. Messages which contravene this rule may be removed forthwith and, depending on the severity of the offence, members posting such material may be summarily banned.

3) Posts/posters which/who are deemed to be consistently disruptive of the smooth and orderly functioning of the forum may be warned and/or suspended and/or banned.

4) If a post is removed, you will be contacted either by PM or email, outlining the reasons for its removal. If you want to know more about removal of posts contact the admin at NGLReturns2014@outlook.com

5) Stay safe online. Giving out personal information which may be used to identify you is strongly discouraged. If you do however choose to go ahead and share personal information with other users, be aware that you do so entirely at your own risk and the board administrator will accept no liability for any consequence, however incurred. (Don’t say you weren’t warned, in other words).

6) We reserve the right to change or amend any or all of the rules at any time if deemed necessary for reasonable and transparent reasons. Your continued use of the board thereafter confirms your acceptance of the new rules and agreement to abide by them.

7) If you disagree with any of the rules please contact the administrator or do not continue to use the board. The rules are in place to ensure a safe and pleasant experience for all.

8) We cannot guarantee access to this board at all times. The board is subject to the host server and users may on occasion experience difficulty logging in or accessing the board as a whole. If you experience any difficulties please contact the administrator. Remember, though, that some problems of this nature may well be beyond the administrator’s control.

9) The administrator has no control over links to other websites, their content or their privacy policies. As such, we will not be held liable for any loss, damage to software or hardware or any consequence, howsoever caused, which you may experience by using this site or a link to another site, or acting upon information given. Neither do we accept any liability for any consequence, howsoever caused, by you acting on information posted on this message board. You are advised to confirm all information before acting upon it. We have no control over the information or content of messages prior to their being posted on this board. We therefore take no responsibility, or accept any liability for any consequence, howsoever caused, in respect of the content of this board. We will endeavour to remove any posts which are in breach of these rules once we are notified or become aware of their existence.

10) Members are free to change their user names at any time, but simultaneous multiple accounts with a deliberate intention to deceive or mislead (so-called "sock puppets") are not allowed. If there is reason to believe that accounts are being misused in this way the matter will be looked into and the member may be banned.

11) Private messages are meant to be exactly that - private. Divulging them to a broader audience is a breach of trust. Please do not post any private message on the open forum without the explicit permission of the sender/receiver.

12) If you see a user in breach of any of these rules, please inform the administrator.

13) The decision of the administrator on any complaint, query, post removal or any other issue will be final. So there.

Remember: the simplest rule is the best – use your common sense and treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Respect other people’s beliefs as you would like your own to be respected. You know it makes sense!

We trust that you will find the board to be a friendly and welcoming place. If you have any problems or concerns, please bring it to the administrator’s attention as soon as possible.

Thank you for your co-operation. Now enjoy yourselves.
Ketty

Re: Rules of the Forum

admin wrote:
Welcome to the forum.


Thank you.  Smilie_PDT

I want to say a huge 'hurrah' to it all but the following, especially:



admin wrote:
1. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person.


and

admin wrote:
2. If a post is removed, you will be contacted either by PM or email, outlining the reasons for its removal.


Thumbs up to that!  :)

admin wrote:
If you see a user in breach of any of these rules, please inform the administrator.


Tee hee, permission to be a dobber-inner.  :lol:   :twisted:  :wink:

Just one question or suggestion . . . do you have a rule regarding sock puppets?   8)
Shaker

Yes. Wash your socks first and be careful with the needle 
Ketty

admin wrote:
Yes. Wash your socks first and be careful with the needle :P


Fairy Nuff.

:twisted:   :twisted:   :twisted:

;-)
Shaker

No, seriously, the policy on sock puppets is that they're not allowed. If there's good reason to believe that such multiple accounts exist, the matter will be looked into.
Ketty

admin wrote:
No, seriously, the policy on sock puppets is that they're not allowed. If there's good reason to believe that such multiple accounts exist, the matter will be looked into.


Doh!  You could have warned me before . . . I've just opened a gazillion and one false email accounts.   :twisted:  JOKING!!  I hate sock puppetry, so, seriously, I'm pleased it's not allowed.

I think I'm going to like it here.  8)
Shaker

Well that's the idea!
The Littlest Homo

Well I never knew sock puppetry meant opening multiple accounts. Thats me learned!
Ketty

Lou Smorels wrote:
Well I never knew sock puppetry meant opening multiple accounts. Thats me learned!


A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community.   There's more at this link What is a Sock Puppet
Farmer Geddon

Re: Rules of the Forum

admin wrote:
Welcome to the forum.

1) This forum is for members of all religious persuasions, which means those of some religious affiliation and none at all. Inevitably this will give rise to debate, but however full and frank the exchange of ideas may be, please keep it civil and courteous. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others will be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite. No area is out of bounds, but the Prayer Room and Bible Study sections are not for debate on the efficacy or otherwise of prayer and on scriptural references. For debate on these issues please use All Faiths & None.

<SNIP>

Thank you for your co-operation. Now enjoy yourselves.


Maybe it is just me but......

If someone intentionally makes a statement that you may disagree with - in real life as well as on any forum - my first reaction is to call that person an Idiot and then explain to them why they are an Idiot.

Have you ever thought "what a stupid thing to say"  and found yourself, whist instructing them why it was stupid, calling into question their mental capacity to fundamentally grasp a concept that is obvious to others?

Sometimes it is difficult to address the argument without insulting the person/poster.
Ketty

Re: Rules of the Forum

Ju-on wrote:


Maybe it is just me but......

If someone intentionally makes a statement that you may disagree with - in real life as well as on any forum - my first reaction is to call that person an Idiot and then explain to them why they are an Idiot.


Yes, hopefully it's just you.  :twisted:

Just because somebody has a differing point of view it doesn't mean to say that it's they, or even anyone, is an idiot.

Ju-on wrote:
Have you ever thought "what a stupid thing to say"  


No, I find myself thinking "what a peculiar (or alternative) thing to say".  

Ju-on wrote:
and found yourself, whist instructing them why it was stupid, calling into question their mental capacity to fundamentally grasp a concept that is obvious to others?


No, because that's not a nice thing to do and in fact, imo, reduces the standing of the "instructor" even if their counter argument is more appealing or accurate.

Ju-on wrote:
Sometimes it is difficult to address the argument without insulting the person/poster.


No it's not; it's called self-control and maturity.  :P  

Lexilogio

Re: Rules of the Forum

Ju-on wrote:
admin wrote:
Welcome to the forum.

1) This forum is for members of all religious persuasions, which means those of some religious affiliation and none at all. Inevitably this will give rise to debate, but however full and frank the exchange of ideas may be, please keep it civil and courteous. By all means criticise ideas but not people. Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others will be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite. No area is out of bounds, but the Prayer Room and Bible Study sections are not for debate on the efficacy or otherwise of prayer and on scriptural references. For debate on these issues please use All Faiths & None.

<SNIP>

Thank you for your co-operation. Now enjoy yourselves.


Maybe it is just me but......

If someone intentionally makes a statement that you may disagree with - in real life as well as on any forum - my first reaction is to call that person an Idiot and then explain to them why they are an Idiot.

Have you ever thought "what a stupid thing to say"  and found yourself, whist instructing them why it was stupid, calling into question their mental capacity to fundamentally grasp a concept that is obvious to others?

Sometimes it is difficult to address the argument without insulting the person/poster.


You do not have to insult the poster if you disagree with an argument - insulting the poster does nothing but inflame people.
It is reasonable to call an argument "stupid" but not the person.
Farmer Geddon

Noooo  if you insult the post you are insulting the poster and we all know how sensitive some posters are...
Lexilogio

Ju-on wrote:
Noooo  if you insult the post you are insulting the poster and we all know how sensitive some posters are...


Well, yes, some people will take an insult about their argument as a personal insult. That can't be helped. There is an element that if you can't take your argument being criticised, then perhaps forums aren't the right arena for you...

But the person should not be insulted.

So it's ok to say that what the person wrote is idiotic, but it's not ok to say that the person is an idiot.
Ketty

Ju-on wrote:
Noooo  if you insult the post you are insulting the poster and we all know how sensitive some posters are...


Love the emoticon!  I may borrow it from time to time.  :-)

I agree with Lexi's reply to the points.  Criticise the post but never the poster.
Farmer Geddon

Ahhh Nous allons voir - je continue de dire qu'il est plus facile de passer par le trou d'une aiguille qu'elle ne l'est pas à heurter la sensibilité de certaines affiches.

Je vis dans l'espérance ...
Ketty

Ju-on wrote:
Ahhh Nous allons voir - je continue de dire qu'il est plus facile de passer par le trou d'une aiguille qu'elle ne l'est pas à heurter la sensibilité de certaines affiches.

Je vis dans l'espérance ...


I think maybe you're correct but we cannot be responsible for the reactions of others if we play by the rules and yes, hope's all some have . . .  ;-)

Farmer Geddon

I still say you cannot help but insult the poster if you insult the post - it's up to that poster to suck it up and take it on the chin........ in fact it should make them review their post and understand what may be wrong with their original point/post and not go bleating on about "the injustice" of being challenged.....


Quote:
Ahhh We'll see - I still say it is easier to go through the eye of a needle than it is not to upset the sensibilities of some posters.

I live in hope ...
Paul

There is a huge difference is saying a persons post is wrong for this and that reason and being offensive. And if one cannot refute another person's arguments without being so then they who have a problem and should get it sorted out. It's really not hard to be one without the other even though it might mean biting one's lip every so often.
Farmer Geddon

I see what you are saying Paul - but sometimes you just feel the need to verbally take the poster and give them a good shake...
LornaDoone40

So does that mean your prepared to be given a good shaking too... or do you think about it the way you do because you'd like to believe/are firmly of the opinion/live with the delusion* that you are never wrong?

   :wink:



(*delete as appropriate.)
Paul

No doubt, but we should nevertheless try to refrain.
Guest

LornaDoone39 wrote:
So does that mean your prepared to be given a good shaking too... or do you think about it the way you do because you'd like to believe/are firmly of the opinion/live with the delusion* that you are never wrong?

   :wink:



(*delete as appropriate.)


I can answer that for them.  They give themselves  a shake when they think they need one. They are not delusional and they do not believe they are always right... But they do try ever so hard to be Right....Even when they are wrong  Smilie_PDT
Guest

Paul wrote:
No doubt, but we should nevertheless try to refrain.


Are we talking about a music refrain here? Smilie_PDT
Ketty

Ju-on wrote:
I see what you are saying Paul - but sometimes you just feel the need to verbally take the poster and give them a good shake...


I can so identify with the need  :twisted:  but usually (not always  :oops: ) the only thing I shake is my head as I walk away from the screen or sit on my hands.

Farmer Geddon

LornaDoone39 wrote:
So does that mean your prepared to be given a good shaking too... or do you think about it the way you do because you'd like to believe/are firmly of the opinion/live with the delusion* that you are never wrong?

   :wink:



(*delete as appropriate.)


Hey shake away - but if I collapse in a fit of giggles, don't get upset....
LornaDoone40

:smt043

Well it would certainly be nice to see you crack a smile.  Would you mind if I call you Mr Gruff from now on?


:P
Farmer Geddon

The Grudge will do fine...
Guest

Ju-on wrote:
The Grudge will do fine...



Does that mean if I called you a grudge that you would hold it against me?

Love Lynne..xx  Smilie_PDT
LornaDoone40

Ju-on wrote:
The Grudge will do fine...


I like Mr Gruff better... hints at a soft and squishy centre... :P
Farmer Geddon

You leave my soft squishy centre out of this....

I much prefer what Lynne is offering.....
LornaDoone40

Ju-on wrote:
You leave my soft squishy centre out of this....


There's no need to be ashamed of your soft and squishy centre Mr Gruff...



:wink:
Farmer Geddon

It's called a beer-belly all right... nothing to be ashamed of....

8)
Guest

Ju-on wrote:
You leave my soft squishy centre out of this....

I much prefer what Lynne is offering.....


Me too!... :wink:    Smilie_PDT
Guest

Ju-on wrote:
It's called a beer-belly all right... nothing to be ashamed of....

8)


It isn't a big beer-belly from what I have seen....  Smilie_PDT
LornaDoone40

Ju-on wrote:
It's called a beer-belly all right... nothing to be ashamed of....

8)


All that thinking literally... a beer belly just makes you Cuddly Mr Gruff.


It's your other soft and squishy centre I was talking about. You know, like the Tin Man..


If you only had a heart...
Ketty

*Walks in looks around and runs out again*


Eeeek, I've entered a twilight zone full of squishiness.  :shock:

Lexilogio

Ketty wrote:
*Walks in looks around and runs out again*


Eeeek, I've entered a twilight zone full of squishiness.  :shock:



Couple more beers and maybe the squishy bits could become a trampoline?
LornaDoone40

:smt044  :smt044  :smt043
Farmer Geddon

I have got a heart Lorna - just left it in a pub somewhere...
Shaft2101

A pub in San Francisco perhaps?
Ketty

Shaft2101 wrote:
A pub in San Francisco perhaps?


Let me know which one, I'll pick it up and return it.  Just give me a month.  
LornaDoone40

Smilie_PDT

Lets just hope it can be resuscitated   :roll:
Shaker



Shaft2101

Dead Pic?

<edit> Fixed the link for you by uploading to my photobucket, I tried fiddling with the URL syntax and it didn't link directly to the other site ...
LornaDoone40

admin wrote:




owww, it hurts...  :smt044  :smt044  :smt044
Ketty

LornaDoone39 wrote:


owww, it hurts...  :smt044  :smt044  :smt044



Nah!  Where there's no sense there's no feeling.  :twisted:
Guest

Swinging bricks don't have feelings...  :lol:

Who needs the kiss of life I am good at mouth to mouth and heart massage... Smilie_PDT
Phyllis Officle

Love is... wrote:
Who needs the kiss of life I am good at mouth to mouth and heart massage... Smilie_PDT
Too much practice on those resuscitation dolls?
cyberman

Re: Rules of the Forum

Shaker wrote:
Address the argument, not the person. Messages which could be deemed purely to cause offence/distress to others or which are considered to harass another poster may be removed, and persistent offenders in this regard will receive a warning and ultimately may be banned. It’s entirely possible to have strong opinions and to disagree while remaining polite..



Is genghiscant in breach of forum rules in calling every reader a "twat" by means of his 'signature' line?

Or is he just a twat?
JMC

Re: Rules of the Forum

Given this:

Quote:
Last edited by Shaker on Fri May 02, 2014 2:49 pm; edited 16 times in total


and this:

Shaker wrote:
6) We reserve the right to change or amend any or all of the rules at any time if deemed necessary for reasonable and transparent reasons.


Is there going to be a post explaining precisely what has been changed regarding the rules and why (transparent reasons)?
Shaker

There might be one if and when I feel like getting around to it at some point.

Otherwise, nah.
JMC

I see. Well until and if reasons are given as to why, I'll at least provide a link to the old forum rules (as of April 2014) so posters can at least see what has been changed.

You're welcome  
Shaker

I wasn't about to thank you - rules 5 and 12 cover all eventualities quite effectively in any case.
JMC

Quote:
rules 5 and 12 cover all eventualities quite effectively in any case.


Which rule 5 and 12? From the original set I linked to, or the edited version cooked up today? They're not the same, and it appears you're referring to the old rules' numbering. If so, and you believe that those two rules :cover all eventualities", then it is worth pointing out that the old rule 5 states:

Quote:
If such a change or amendment occurs, it will be posted on the board as (Amended).
Shaker

JMC wrote:
Quote:
rules 5 and 12 cover all eventualities quite effectively in any case.


Which rule 5 and 12? From the original set I linked to, or the edited version cooked up today? They're not the same.


Rule 12 is unchanged; rule 5 is only slightly changed. Obviously the latest, most recent version is to be considered definitive.
JMC

Shaker wrote:
JMC wrote:
Quote:
rules 5 and 12 cover all eventualities quite effectively in any case.


Which rule 5 and 12? From the original set I linked to, or the edited version cooked up today? They're not the same.


Rule 12 is unchanged; rule 5 is only slightly changed. Obviously the latest, most recent version is to be considered definitive.


Oh, well in that case rule 5 is:

Quote:
5) Stay safe online. Giving out personal information which may be used to identify you is strongly discouraged. If you do however choose to go ahead and share personal information with other users, be aware that you do so entirely at your own risk and the board administrator will accept no liability for any consequence, however incurred. (Don’t say you weren’t warned, in other words).


and rule 12 is:

Quote:
12) If you see a user in breach of any of these rules, please inform the administrator.



Hmm... not exactly "covering all eventualities" are they?
Shaker

My mistake - as a new rule had been inserted, everything after #3 in the new version has been shifted up one - therefore I meant rules 5 and 13 (in the latest version).
JMC

Shaker wrote:
My mistake - as a new rule had been inserted everything after three in the new version has been shifted up one - therefore I meant rules 5 and 13 (in the latest version).


So

Quote:
5) Stay safe online. Giving out personal information which may be used to identify you is strongly discouraged. If you do however choose to go ahead and share personal information with other users, be aware that you do so entirely at your own risk and the board administrator will accept no liability for any consequence, however incurred. (Don’t say you weren’t warned, in other words).



and:

Quote:
The decision of the administrator on any complaint, query, post removal or any other issue will be final. So there.


Doesn't really cover the stuff about changing rules without announcing it, though.

The added rule, then, is the ambiguous:

Quote:
3) Posts/posters which/who are deemed to be consistently disruptive of the smooth and orderly functioning of the forum may be warned and/or suspended and/or banned.
Shaker

JMC

Some is my opinion, the rest is just a comparison between the old rules and the current rules which can be done through viewing Google cache (as the precise nature of admin's many, many edits of the rules are not volunteered otherwise).
Ketty

Shaker's forum: Shaker makes da rulez, rethinks the rules, amends the rules.  Shaker's rules rule on his forum.  Maybe he should make that a rule.  No problem.  
JMC

Yes, Shaker made both sets of rules.

This set:



(link)

And the current set, created piecemeal after numerous edits to the OP and visible there.

I don't see any harm in comparing, despite any apparent reluctance from admin in revealing what changes have been made and why. Do you?  
Ketty

JMC wrote:
Yes, Shaker made both sets of rules.

And the current set, created piecemeal after numerous edits to the OP and visible there.


Not sure of your point.  You say 'created piecemeal' as if it's a bad thing.  Knowing Shaker, they would have taken much careful thought.

JMC wrote:
I don't see any harm in comparing, despite any apparent reluctance from admin in revealing what changes have been made and why.


No, no harm at all.  It just doesn't interest me.  The rules were what they were, they are what they are, and no doubt at some point in the future they will be what they will be.  It's Shaker's forum and he doesn't need to account to any of us here for how he wants it to run.
JMC

Ketty wrote:
JMC wrote:
Yes, Shaker made both sets of rules.

And the current set, created piecemeal after numerous edits to the OP and visible there.


Not sure of your point.  You say 'created piecemeal' as if it's a bad thing.


I'm saying "created piecemeal" because that best describes an OP that has been edited 16 times. And how exactly am I saying it "as if it's a bad thing"? What part of the statement, as it appears, communicates such negativity?

Quote:
No, no harm at all.  It just doesn't interest me.


Right. Okay then.  
Ketty

JMC wrote:

I'm saying "created piecemeal" because that best describes an OP that has been edited 16 times, most of which happened since Lexi left.


I don't see anything particularly significant in that, other than Shaker's back at the helm and desiring to put his own mark on it again.  Maybe it's a male thing, wanting to mark their territory?  Maybe it's a male thing wanting to question it?  Or maybe he's just re-thunk some of the finer points.  Don't knock it, it keeps him busy and out of mischief.

What is it you want him to do/say?
JMC

Quote:
I don't see anything particularly significant in that...


Well, neither did I, but then you picked up on the use of the word (apparently you think I "said" it as though it were a bad thing, but I can't see how you got that interpretation from the words as I typed them).

Anyway, all this doesn't interest you, as you've mentioned above.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Shaker's forum: Shaker makes da rulez, rethinks the rules, amends the rules.  Shaker's rules rule on his forum.  Maybe he should make that a rule.  No problem.  


But if Shaker wants to speak to anyone, other then you, he needs to start showing some integrity, or it will all go back to what it was before Lexi took over. It is a public forum intended for public contributions. It has only been set up by Shaker. He cannot literally own it and without public participation what has he got? You. Get with the program girl and smell the coffee before you both lose the small amounts of support you have. Why should JMC want to participate here after you just spoke to him like you did, and please do not say what shaker says to wind posters up by showing them the door, because when they start walking through it then they will not stop and you will never get them back. It only becomes Shakers forum when he closes it to the public, like R&E. JMC can always join the Boygs forum.

Is TV still around? Seems like you and Shaker have shacked up together leaving TV in the outhouse, poor fella. Someone has really got vocal since we lost Lexi.
Ketty

JMC wrote:
Quote:
I don't see anything particularly significant in that...


Well, neither did I, but then you picked up on the use of the word (apparently you think I "said" it as though it were a bad thing, but I can't see how you got that interpretation from the words as I typed them).

Anyway, all this doesn't interest you, as you've mentioned above.


I'm not interested in Shaker doing what he wants with his rules on his forum, I'm interested in why you are so interested as to keep on about it.  As I asked, what do you want him to do/say?
JMC

Ketty wrote:

I'm not interested in Shaker doing what he wants with his rules on his forum, I'm interested in why you are so interested as to keep on about it.


"Keeping on about it" is a subjective term. I brought up the rule changes less than 24 hours ago. That it is still being discussed now is largely down to your continued posts here; Shaker's already responded ISTM.

As I said - what is the harm in posting the old rules? You agreed there is none and that you're not interested. Everything else since then has been replies to your posts, answering your question as to why the disussion is still going on: you're perpetuating it!  
Ketty

JMC wrote:
Ketty wrote:

I'm not interested in Shaker doing what he wants with his rules on his forum, I'm interested in why you are so interested as to keep on about it.


"Keeping on about it" is a subjective term. I brought up the rule changes less than 24 hours ago. That it is still being discussed now is largely down to your continued posts here; Shaker's already responded ISTM.

As I said - what is the harm in posting the old rules? You agreed there is none and that you're not interested. Everything else since then has been replies to your posts, answering your question as to why the disussion is still going on: you're perpetuating it!  


Not really, but if that's what you want to believe.    I was merely interested as to why it's a 'thing' with you.
JMC

Quote:
Not really, but if that's what you want to believe.


Want doesn't come into it.

Quote:
I was merely interested as to why it's a 'thing' with you.


Define "thing" and I might be able to sate your interest.  
Derek

[quote="Ralph2:117111"]
Ketty wrote:
Shaker's forum: Shaker makes da rulez, rethinks the rules, amends the rules.  Shaker's rules rule on his forum.  Maybe he should make that a rule.  No problem.  


But if Shaker wants to speak to anyone, other then you, he needs to start showing some integrity, or it will all go back to what it was before Lexi took over. It is a public forum intended for public contributions. It has only been set up by Shaker. He cannot literally own it and without public participation what has he got? You. Get with the program girl and smell the coffee before you both lose the small amounts of support you have. Why should JMC want to participate here after you just spoke to him like you did, and please do not say what shaker says to wind posters up by showing them the door, because when they start walking through it then they will not stop and you will never get them back. It only becomes Shakers forum when he closes it to the public, like R&E. JMC can always join the Boygs forum.

Is TV still around? Seems like you and Shaker have shacked up together leaving TV in the outhouse, poor fella. Someone has really got vocal since we lost Lexi.
Ketty

JMC wrote:

Define "thing" and I might be able to sate your interest.  


I wondered why you feel the need to go on about it (ie, having a 'thing') when clearly you're not getting what you need in return, and so it goes on - hence my question what do you want him to say/do that will sate your 'thing'.  

Bored now: no longer interested - although it's been interesting.  I'll leave you to your pursuits.  
JMC

I think you have it the wrong way round* - I am not posting the old version of the rules because I expect Shaker to do anything; I have no expectations of Shaker as either admin or a poster. His initial response to my question up-thread (and your initial interjection for that matter) suggests I am right in having no expectations. That's not an issue for me

The posting of the original rules, therefore, is a result of not expecting Shaker to do anything regarding informing membership of how he has changed the rules. I posted the original rules because I don't expect admin will explain how the rules have changed (whether he should is another matter), and so by posting what I did any member can see what's been changed in lieu of said "official" announcement. I think it is interesting to compare, an interest you apparently don't share but of course your interest is not a prerequisite for any other poster's contributions.   In any case, as the descriptor for this board says, the subject of forum rules may be "boring" but it is "important". At least posters here can see what "important" changes have been made, something that couldn't be easily done before even though it is arguably useful to see.  



*And will again say your view on "going on about it" is subjective. After my initial post I've only responded to Shaker and you; I haven't, for example, posted when no one else has or tried to carry on the subject elsewhere, nor has it been the sole subject of my postings on the forum. Therefore any multiple posts here on the subject on my part are dependent upon replies, like yours, on this subject you're apparently not interested in  
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Is TV still around? Seems like you and Shaker have shacked up together leaving TV in the outhouse, poor fella. Someone has really got vocal since we lost Lexi.

I refer you to this recent post, which you evidently missed:

trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2, I am still here and not feeling edged out in any way [...] 2) I have other issues (totally unrelated to ngl) that ketty and shaker are aware of, that mean I am not able to participate on the  open board as fully as I would like. I am however, in full contact on the admin side and have no concerns about any particular issue.


I regret that trent should have felt the need to have explained himself in such a manner, but be that as it may, he has done so and I consider that a definitive - and final - answer.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Forum rules
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum