Page 2 of 2

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:23 pm
by jackdaw version
My point is that I DID NOT USE the words "cum" and "cock". They are not words I would use. "Wankers," sure — and I explained my use of the word. I personally believe Charlie is muddled in his head and ascribing words to me that the spammer used. I did reply to that spammer with two words often used to describe genitalia. Under the circumstances, it was like one more little drop in the great huge ocean.

So, I understand that Charlie would like the Forum to become some sort of updated online version of "Listen With Mother."

"Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin . . . "

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:27 pm
by judith
Nigel w wrote:
jackdaw version wrote: accept that such language is not acceptable on this website and move on. If moving on for you means moving out, that's a shame. But so be it.


I could not live with myself if I did not here interject to say the I am certain that Jonathan did not use those last two c words. I read his posts and am familiar with his writing and the language which he uses. And, though I am not often offended by words such as 'wanker' and the f word (among other such words, all of which are used by many on this forum), those two words which Charlie attributes to Jonathan, well, I would have noticed and remembered. I do have a vague memory of someone's reference or innuendo or usage to one or both of the words, but it was a brief post and not Jonathan's.

To be censored for that which I had not done and then be told to buck up to it is not something I would be able to accept.

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:40 pm
by Papa M
I think that what might have really hurt Jonathan, other than possibly being mis-quoted, is the seemingly patronising suggestion that he " take a break for a while and come back when you feel better".

Whilst Charlie may not have intended to patronise it certainly would have rattled my cage a little.

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:58 pm
by Neil Foxlee
This whole thing seems to have got way out of hand. Can anyone supply a link to or (edited) version of the passages that apparently started it all off so that we all know what we're talking about?

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:01 pm
by Gordon Neill
Ah. I think I see what happened. In the heat of the moment, Jonathan has flung some spammers words back at him. The spam has then been deleted, leaving only Jonathan's post sticking out like...er... a sore thumb. Charlie has subsequently read the spam-free thread and not rwalised that Jonathan was quoting someone else. Rather than an authoritarian dictatorship, I think it was more of a balls...er....I mean.....er...a c..... no, no....more of...er....a mix-up . Yes, that's it. A mix-up.

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:23 am
by Ian M
Yes, the only context I can remember those words in was the influx of porn spam, which was removed, although I think the replies stayed, which might explain their (mis)attribution to JD. Charlie may have missed the original spam, so I think it is in all probability a mix-up and misunderstanding all round.

If that is the case, then surely we can all recognise that it was a rare occurrence, (and the only point of the replies was an attempt to defuse the ugliness with some ribald humour, even if misguided) and so we can forget about it, and carry on as normal (JD included)?

The only moral to be drawn is not to reply to spam, and for Zee to delete the whole thread, should some resurface. Otherwise, no damage done, everybody calm down and resume the finer and recherche points of planet pop.

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:54 am
by Des
I've been much more stupid and offensive than Jonathan in the past and everyone was very forgiving, so I hope Jonathan stays. Onward and upward.

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:52 am
by jackdaw version
Once again, I very much appreciate all the supportive comments. I feel as though it has become clear what the problem was.

For now, however, I do not expect to be such an active member of the Forum, but equally I won't be an exile. When I have something interesting or apparently important to say, or worthwhile information to share, I will. But I will sit out the daily joshing.

I am tired and sore, and frankly there's still something of a bad taste in my mouth from what I still consider to be unwarranted treatment. I've apologized for offences I may have caused and I stated that I will accept Charlie's apology whenever and however it is made, aloud or in silence. At this time, I don't know how I can be more conciliatory.

Besides, my wife is coming home after five months away. There's a house to clean in preparation! That'll take two days. Then there'll be a lot on our marital plate, so to speak — don't touch that! Naughty punners will be licked . . . I mean whipped.

Hasta luego! Be good — and don't let Papa M convince you that "clarkson" is an acceptable word for anything else! The man has, of course, consummate knowledge and wisdom — but just this once, I'll go my own way . . .

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:31 am
by Ian M
Haste ye back

Re: In Response to "new contributers please"

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:26 am
by Papa M
jackdaw version wrote: — and don't let Papa M convince you that "clarkson" is an acceptable word for anything else! The man has, of course, consummate knowledge and wisdom — but just this once, I'll go my own way . . .


As you probably have realised I have always been inclined to call a spade a shovel.

(Substitute Clarkson for Moyles if you wish - or have you not yet been subjected to the ghastly Moyles creature in the USA?)