Scotland, a foreign country?

[jimcee]

In reply to these previous posts -
Elaine Rodger - you seem to be harking back to a posting of mine which was withdrawn at your behest about a year ago , and concerning which you accused me, quite erroniously of both necromancy and bestiality.
I probably should have disputed this at the time, but let it pass. However, if you feel that this slur on my character precludes me from commenting on the posts on this website, I would be happy to investigate the context of your condemnation.
Mudslinging may be second nature to you, but it is not part of my vocabulary.

And talking of vocabulary - Bill McDicken your tolerance of every second adjective being f******* is obviously a lot higher than mine. It is not particularly the word itself which has no bearing on the subject - it is an extremely lazy way of using the language, and shows a complete lack of vocabulary.
Old fuddy duddy I may be, but I find it offensive - especially when it is so liberally used.

Nick Bowles - I am completely confused by all this bot business - but I can assure you that there are genuine people out there who access your forum, and unfortunately for your cause the ones I have spoken to, have not been enamoured by the some of the language. You will notice that in my response to Bill McD I have used the expression F****** - this is what I would have expected to do had I typed it out in full, before you allowed it to be posted - yet in your video clip there is no such editing - surely there is a double standard here?

[jimcee]

Sorry - it is a bit difficult to type out a reply without access to the original comments-
So Bill McD - my reference to "old pointy ears" was not unconstitutional - it had no reference to the spaniel which graces your site whose ear extremities are well out of sight - it was a reference to one D.Campbell who is on your side of this debate, and is a reference which I have used in the past, and has no bearing on his own appendages, but is more to do with the green being which he chose to adorn his avatar. And to show that there is no animosity by the description I used, he was instrumental in fixing me up with the avatar which I currently use. I do not always understand his ramblings (particularly when he quotes lines from films which I have never heard of), but I bear him no ill-will by calling him "old pointy ears"

[NickB]

. . . I can assure you that there are genuine people out there who access your forum, and unfortunately for your cause the ones I have spoken to, have not been enamoured by the some of the language.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, they are under no compulsion to visit this forum.

Indeed, if they have found some of the material here offensive then they would surely be a bit mad to repeatedly come back for more offence.

I find these alleged people you speak of very strange - compelled to return again and again to a site they have no wish to participate in and are offended by.

[Bill McDicken]

Ha!, I understand now Jim. The Green Being is normally called Yoda. He usually appears in the Star War films, though not known for playing the bagpipes. My apologies as it did look like a swipe at somebody.

[jimcee]

Well, but 2 people to reply to this time.
Nick B - People who visit your site do not do so just to hear your pearls of wisdom - they are also interested in the debate engendered between yourself and Innes which can make for interesting reading except when you lose the rag a bit (Innes has a better control on his temper). And after all that is the reason for the debate - for an appraisal of the arguments - for and against.
Maybe you wish it were otherwise - that all your pronouncements went unchallenged - in that case you would find the readership dropped off dramatically.
No a good argy-bargy is what attracts the punters, and it would appear that Innes has disappeared from the scene (by your instigation?), and if so you may well find a serious drop off in readership unless someone steps into the breach - and I will only do that if your postings really get offensive or absurd.
Now coming to Elaine Rodger.
Point 1. I had a posting withdrawn a year ago by NickB on the advice of Elaine Rodger (he has admitted this in a PM to me). Yet Elaine denies this fact and says she was not a member at that time (whatever that has to do with it).
Point 2. Quoting from her posting on "Jimcee's off topic Independence thread", which is still available there online - " I find it rather strange that someone would presume to adopt the moral high ground after the posts they had removed last year. The sudden concern for children is a bit late when you consider a so called joke posted by this person which consisted of necrophilia/bestiality".
Elaine, if you have any proof of these accusations could you please enumerate them.
As John Major (a dreaded Tory) said "put up or shut up"

[NickB]

.
Jim,

I am astounded that you seem to wish to keep harping back to those posts I removed. They were shockingly insensitive at a time of great personal tragedy on the island.

The fact that you seem to want to keep dragging this up in open forum suggests that you still do not realise just how out of order you were.

I respectfully suggest that it might be politic to refrain from mentioning this again.

[jimcee]

Nick, It is not nice to be accused of necromancy or bestiality by anyone - even by someone who has it in for me, in every posting she submits.
However, I would like to make it clear that in any posts I have ever submitted to this website, that in none could I ever have been accused of these things.
And in your PM to me on the subject (which you will still be able to retrieve) you said that ER had reported the said "insensitive" posts to you - yet she has just categorically denied this - someone here is being less than truthful.
I would be most grateful to you if you could send to me by PM, a transcript of my deleted posts which seem to have aroused such ire in ER, that she keeps harping on about it, at every available opportunity, suggesting that I am not a fit person to have a legitimate opinion on anything.
I would have sent this to you by PM, if I was up to the complexities of your website, but am quite happy for it to appear for public viewing (even by bots)

[NickB]

.
I didn't keep your deleted posts. I believe however that you are well aware of what they referred to.

PM permissions have been removed after recent abuse of the system. However, I have now restored your ability to read private messages.

Only Herby Dice and myself make decisions on what is unacceptable and when a post needs to be pulled. Go to your inbox and read my message of 3rd April again, where I reminded you of the content of these posts. The posts were brought to my attention by more than one user. They were completely out of order, and were pulled as soon as I became aware of them. Precisely how or exactly when I became aware of them is utterly irrelevant.

They were not pulled because Elaine Rodger or anyone else asked for them to be pulled, they were pulled by me because they were completely unacceptable.

It is fortunate that very few people saw these posts before I removed them.

Do I make myself plain enough ? I really do suggest that you let this matter drop. Any further references to your pulled posts will be construed as back seat moderation and a 30 day ban will result.

And while we are on the matter, any further complaints about the language used in posts or in videos or other reference material will also be deemed as back seat moderation and will result in a ban.

So go ahead, Jim - you keep saying that you want to be banned. Make my day.

On the second matter, I believe Elaine is referring to an off-colour joke you made about a dead camel, a nun and a priest just over a year ago when you were frolicking with Foxglove. I can provide a link if necessary. Not everyone finds this type of humour amusing.