Seil Chat

It would appear and read that I have taken ownership of a previous post (threads now removed)

Can I clarify that I am not the 'author' of this post as the index page suggests ......... !!!

Snoman

Gavin Rae wrote:It would appear and read that I have taken ownership of a previous post (threads now removed)

Can I clarify that I am not the 'author' of this post as the index page suggests ......... !!!

Snoman

Hi Snoman,

Your first post in the thread refers to the disappearance of a preceding post.

I think most of our readers will work out what happened . . .

Well in the interests of clarity, what were these two posts all about?
Maybe they meant something to the two posters but to the rest of us they were totally garbage and should be consigned to the dustbin.
This kind if thing does nothing for the debating facility of this website and will only put it into a more seriously decline

jimcee wrote:Well in the interests of clarity, what were these two posts all about?
Maybe they meant something to the two posters but to the rest of us they were totally garbage and should be consigned to the dustbin.
This kind if thing does nothing for the debating facility of this website and will only put it into a more seriously decline

The forum is what it is.

People can post under their own names or not at all.

I am under no obligation to explain anything to you or anyone else.

If the first 2 posts on this subject were of a private nature to those who posted them, and completely unintelligible to all and sundry, surely they could have been done through the private message system and saved a lot of head scratching.
Alternatively , as old beret hat is not going to provide us with any enlightenment, perhaps Gavin Rae could elucidate the reason for his remark.

.
The PM system has been shut down due to abuse by pseudonomic account holders.

You can probably guess who they were.

If existing users would find the PM system handy then I may reinstate it and simply deactivate all accounts whose owners have not come forward and converted to their real name in order to avoid abuse.

This is getting seriously off topic.
I cannot speak for the dwindling number of participants, but personally I have made practically no use of the PM facility and didn't even know of it's existence until about a year ago. And I was also unaware that the service? had been discontinued at the behest of our administrator.
It would be interesting to know the reasons that the system was being abused, considering that it was supposed to be private.

jimcee wrote:It would be interesting to know the reasons that the system was being abused, considering that it was supposed to be private.

That's on a need to know basis Jim.

Your curiosity will have to go unsatisfied

Hi Jim

Well I'm happy to 'eludicate' my thread but only in the attempt to draw a line underneath this issue

I'm certain this is totally unnecessary as you replied to 'the Latin Gent' in the post 'The Guardian is suggesting vote rigging ' ........ !! So I think you are well aware of the background ? - a bit of stirring here Mr C ......... ! Methinks

Indeed the 'Latin gents' post was still appearing earlier tonight

As you know NOS was posting under his original pseudonym - (now sadly banned in my opinion)

I have to say that I was amazed how long his thread remained 'live' before it was removed by the administrator ( he later 'eluded' to being out of wi- fi )

This prompted me to offer odds of 1/3 to Bill McDickens that the post would not last 24 hrs

I lost !!!

My latest post 'clarification' prompted me to disown the authorship of a post named 'Response to censored post ' which I appear as author on the index page

I hope this clarifies the position ?

I think I might just stick to the general forum from now on (if indeed the forum survives )- the debate section appears to have sadly lost its balance - the stats speak for themselves total 138 - one author 95 other authors 43

Snoman

Thanks Gavin, for taking the time to clarify what was going on with these cryptic messages.
I must applaud you for taking the time to quantify the Indepenence debate statistics, which makes quite clear how biased the input was.
As it is now history, I am surprised (well, not really) that new stuff on the upcoming council election is being floated under this banner.
Also that a meeting on the subject which took place about a month ago, or more, is still being advertised on the Home page.

jimcee wrote:. . . a meeting on the subject which took place about a month ago, or more, is still being advertised on the Home page.

No-one has sent me any details of any forthcoming events to replace it with.

A bit of research shows that the advertised meeting took place in June.
We are now in October.
So NB suggests that the meeting, now long past will stay in-situ until someone else provides an alternative which will take place in the future.
However he has recently posted notice of a forthcoming meeting in Lochgilphead which is right up his street which could easily have replaced the redundant one.
As both relate to his espoused cause, I cannot understand his reluctance to tuck it away in the defunct Independence debate instead emblazoning it on the Home page.

jimcee wrote:A bit of research shows that the advertised meeting took place in June.
We are now in October.
So NB suggests that the meeting, now long past will stay in-situ until someone else provides an alternative which will take place in the future.
However he has recently posted notice of a forthcoming meeting in Lochgilphead which is right up his street which could easily have replaced the redundant one.
As both relate to his espoused cause, I cannot understand his reluctance to tuck it away in the defunct Independence debate instead emblazoning it on the Home page.

Jim,

I took the notice of the YES meeting off the home page of the community web site less than an hour after I first read your post about it.

No apology necessary.

The Lochgilphead meeting is not a Seil event, so no reason to put it on the Noticeboard.