cya all

[FIF]

There is no need to back down, the matter is over and has been for a while. All Newts had to do was take it on the chin like everyone else has who has received an infraction and move on. Newts decided he wanted to make a big scene, and be the centre of attention. The sort of thing my 15 month old son does.

He can either grow up and come back, or carry on sulking. Either way i'm not fussed.

Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.

 

[tedfoxxx]

Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.

Its a shame from my point of view that Newton has decided not to post anymore, and the fact he quit TB over one little infraction, but i think that NF was right to infract him for what he said, it was insensitive and silly. I'm sure he meant nothing bad by it but NF was right to do what he did.

:icon_sad::icon_sad:
I'm gutted that he dosen't want to post anymore, but i don't think NF was or is acting like a two year old.

 

[spionfox]

Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.

In fairness, none of us apart from Nottingham and Newton know if anything other than the original post is behind this.

If it is just the original post then I fail to see why an infraction was given. It was an 'off-the-cuff' remark made in jest not malice and even if it was not taken as such (by a third party may I add, unless of course Durham made an 'off-list' complaint) it was made on a forum where apparently 'different rules apply' and if people don't like it they should just move on.

Nothing worthy of an infraction there IMHO - but of course I am not privvy to anything else so the infraction may well be justified afterall.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Newton will be back at some point

 

[Boy Genius]

Its a shame from my point of view that Newton has decided not to post anymore, and the fact he quit TB over one little infraction, but i think that NF was right to infract him for what he said, it was insensitive and silly. I'm sure he meant nothing bad by it but NF was right to do what he did.

:icon_sad::icon_sad:
I'm gutted that he dosen't want to post anymore, but i don't think NF was or is acting like a two year old.

Are you looking for a night in a Travel Lodge?

 

[FIF]

Its a shame from my point of view that Newton has decided not to post anymore, and the fact he quit TB over one little infraction, but i think that NF was right to infract him for what he said, it was insensitive and silly. I'm sure he meant nothing bad by it but NF was right to do what he did.

:icon_sad::icon_sad:
I'm gutted that he dosen't want to post anymore, but i don't think NF was or is acting like a two year old.

It's good we can have a difference of opinion without being infracted. If we were all infracted for insensitive or silly remarks only those who lurk and never post would be infraction free. The randomness of infractions is what annoys me.

 

[tedfoxxx]

It's good we can have a difference of opinion without being infracted. If we were all infracted for insensitive or silly remarks only those who lurk and never post would be infraction free. The randomness of infractions is what annoys me.

****:icon_wink

 

[tedfoxxx]

Are you looking for a night in a Travel Lodge?

A Linton Travel Tavern would suit me fine thanks

 

[FIF]

****:icon_wink

It's good we can have a difference of opinion without being infracted.

:icon_cool

 

[Macky]

This was newts' final post before he started this cya all thread.

I think we should have a candle lit vigil there and pray for his return.

 

[bocadillo]

In fairness, none of us apart from Nottingham and Newton know if anything other than the original post is behind this.

If it is just the original post then I fail to see why an infraction was given. It was an 'off-the-cuff' remark made in jest not malice and even if it was not taken as such (by a third party may I add, unless of course Durham made an 'off-list' complaint) it was made on a forum where apparently 'different rules apply' and if people don't like it they should just move on.

Nothing worthy of an infraction there IMHO - but of course I am not privvy to anything else so the infraction may well be justified afterall.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Newton will be back at some point

As has already been pointed out, it was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was edited in afterwards, which seems to suggest to me that there was aforethought.

 

[spionfox]

As has already been pointed out, it was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was edited in afterwards, which seems to suggest to me that there was aforethought.

OK, my choice of the phrase 'off-the-cuff' was erroneous but I still feel the exact words used (whether off-the-cuff or used in aforethought) were not worthy of an infraction given the forum they were used in and the context under which Newts made them.

A forum member loses a work colleague and another forum member asks for their VCash. It would be bad taste if Newts was asking for the departeds VCash (and even so, this remark was made in the General Chat forum which is supposedly more tolerant of certain comments) but I read the comment as Newts asking asking for Durhams VCash. As Durham is still very much with us I can't see why the remark caused such a problem to some people.

I'm not particularly on Newtons side in all of this - he his big and ugly enough to fight his own battles - but I do feel that this is all a storm in a tea cup and nobody involved comes out of it with much credit at all.

 

[Darth Vodka]

As has already been pointed out, it was not an off-the-cuff remark. It was edited in afterwards, which seems to suggest to me that there was aforethought.

what was the offending post?

i missed it...

 

[Blue Maniac]

He mentioned Luigi Glombard

 

[Lako42]

He mentioned Luigi Glombard

Infraction here please

 

[bocadillo]

OK, my choice of the phrase 'off-the-cuff' was erroneous but I still feel the exact words used (whether off-the-cuff or used in aforethought) were not worthy of an infraction given the forum they were used in and the context under which Newts made them.

A forum member loses a work colleague and another forum member asks for their VCash. It would be bad taste if Newts was asking for the departeds VCash (and even so, this remark was made in the General Chat forum which is supposedly more tolerant of certain comments) but I read the comment as Newts asking asking for Durhams VCash. As Durham is still very much with us I can't see why the remark caused such a problem to some people.

I'm not particularly on Newtons side in all of this - he his big and ugly enough to fight his own battles - but I do feel that this is all a storm in a tea cup and nobody involved comes out of it with much credit at all.

Perhaps that's part of the problem - people are seeing this as a battle, when it is nothing of the sort.

 

[homer]

Does anyone REALLY give a shit

 

[Cate Fox]

Does anyone REALLY give a shit

Unfortunately Homer some really seem to be bothered by it all...

 

[lazzer]

Does anyone REALLY give a shit

Nope.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Does anyone REALLY give a shit

Nope, couldn't give a fook.

 

[Siouxsie]

Unfortunately Homer some really seem to be bothered by it all...

It does seem a shame to lose one of the characters of this board over something that on the face of it (and I admit I didn't see it at the time as I wasn't here) seems fairly trivial.