cya all

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nottingham Fox said:
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.
Click to expand...

Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.
 
FIF said:
Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FIF said:
Shame that you can't see that you have acted like a child during the terrible twos.
Click to expand...

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 :tumbleweed:
 
tedfoxxx said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you looking for a night in a Travel Lodge?
 
tedfoxxx said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FIF said:
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.
Click to expand...

****:icon_wink
 
spionfox said:
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 :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

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.
 
bocadillo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bocadillo said:
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.
Click to expand...

what was the offending post?

i missed it...
 
spionfox said:
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.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that's part of the problem - people are seeing this as a battle, when it is nothing of the sort.
 
Cate Fox said:
Unfortunately Homer some really seem to be bothered by it all...
Click to expand...


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool2356
2Arsenal2450
3Nottm F2447
4Chelsea2443
5Manchester C  2441
6Newcastle2441
7Bournemouth2440
8Aston Villa2437
9Fulham2436
10Brighton2434
11Brentford2431
12Palace2430
13Manchester U2429
14Tottenham 2427
15West Ham2427
16Everton2326
17Wolves2419
18Leicester2417
19Ipswich2416
20Southampton249

Latest posts

Back
Top