I enjoy reading posts from both of you Tim and TAC. I would hope that this does not escalate. I would say that starting the thread with controversy just fans the flames.
No judgement on who deserves what, but no need to start a thread with “bait”.
How about you two battle it out in private emails?
Or you can both pick on me!
Seriously, both of you guys are too smart to continue this, respect each other and don’t bait each other. We have a lot more fun stuff to talk about.
Regards, Greg
Terry A de C Foley said:Tom Ruby said:Sadly, over here in Broonistan that's a thing of the past. Only if you are a professional photographer willl you be allowed to do that. ALL persons working with or in the company of children under the age of 16 have to go through a compulsory police background check, known as the Enhanced Criminal Records Check.
Sheesh! The teachers used to ask me to bring the camera and take pictures.Sad, but these days, it seems that it is necessary to protect youngsters from any from of exploitation.
Besp
tac
Tim Brien said:
Terry, if you had posted simply about your running day then kudos to you. You made a conscious decision in your topic title and your leading paragraph, to make a value judgement on forum behaviour. You are a language expert, so your chosen words were deliberate and meant to offend. You believe that I inferred that you were criticising me, personally. I made no assumption. I took it that you were making a deliberate criticism of those who voice an opinion. For that matter, I personally object to your continued reference to guns, as being a train forum, I see no place for that topic, but I have simply accepted that guns are part of your psyche, as voicing an opinion is part of mine. If any considered themselves victims of verbal abuse/intimidation then they would cease posting. To date, none of the procastinators have left the forum and, I believe, enjoy the verbal sparring. One receives as much as one dishes out.I stopped posting on MLS because of a tyrannical, abusive moderator who rules with an iron fist, with the support of his owner/handler. After many postings on the 'nice boys' forum, over the pond, I grew bored with constant postings of LGB bragging rights and what the postman just delivered and how many of a particular type of LGB locomotive one owns. LSC allows real discussion on a topic, warts and all. I feel that you would like LSC to mimic MLS and the MAD forum and possibly, the family forum. We are not all sheep to be lead around by a shepherd. The reason that many post on this site is that they have a measure of freedom of speech, something denied on many forum sites. I see LSC as the last bastion of free speech and object to any criticism or restriction of that right.</blockquote>Tim,
You seem to be saying you have the right to express your opinion, fan flames, and say whatever else you want but not to allow someone else to do the same. As far of the subject of guns I participated in an MLS string that happened to have more than one law enforcement officer involved in it and the subject of guns came up. Just people of like minds AND expreriences. You don’t like guns, then don’t participate in the string or have your say and expect the other people to have theirs.LAO
Greg,
there is no battle and no escalation. I simply object to anyone who purposely sets out to limit discussion on a topic. This was a vieled baiting, disguised as a posting on the member’s main topic subject for which he should be applauded. TAC has on numerous occasions, expended his valuable time to bring trains to children (and adults) for them to enjoy the experience. I feel that a simple posting in the particular thread in relation to how one could involve children into the hobby would have been more appropriate and would have returned the deserved kudos, without embroiling a ‘battle’. TAC is TAC and I am who I am.
Larry,
cast your mind back to the topic of guns on MLS and you will remember, as I do, as the topic was in relation to LGB on the Public Forum section and Andre Schofield introduced the topic of guns to the existing thread on LGB. I responded, as I was previously involved in the thread, that I believed that introducing guns had nothing to do with the main topic and could be construed as intimidation. The thread then migrated to a gun loving culture of mutual praise of their chosen weapons and in one post a member even bragged of his killing prowess in Vietnam. Hardly appropriate for a train forum.
I enjoy criticism, but get your facts right and I will show you the respect you deserve. Remember, the topic on MLS was in relation to LGB discussion and Andre introduced guns to the discussion. I was already involved in the discussion and yet you change your version of the purported facts to attempt to belittle my input. Quote from your post - " You don't like guns, then don't participate in the string or have your say and expect the other people to have theirs." You got it wrong buddy! It was a discussion on LGB and I was already involved in the discussion. Guns came up in the discussion. Exactly what had guns got to do with the existing topic of LGB escapes me but Andre introduced guns to the topic and I objected, as I perceived the introduction of guns to be a form of intimidation. Discussion of guns was totally inappropriate to the existing thread discussion at the time. If the topic of guns was in a new thread, then no problem.
In so far as your opening statement, then like everyone else, you have an opinion on a particular topic, which I respect (even if I disagree with you) and respond to. When one stifles discussion with a statement that is intended to belittle those that enjoy debate and deny their right of speech, then that is openly denying those having an opinion on a topic. Denying right of speech is not expressing an opinion and merely exercising censorship.Tim,
I have just reread all of the above and realised that Tac did not actually bring up the subject of guns.
You did.
I do however agree that the heading of the topic was antagonistic and uncalled for.
The actual subject matter was relevant to a train forum.
Tac should be applauded for his efforts to promote our wonderful hobby.
Whilst I have the same abhorrence of guns that you do, as far as I can recall Tac rightly keeps his off topic comments to the Off Topic forum.
Tony,
I did not state that Terry introduced the topic of guns. Reread what I did say. Terry has previously discussed his non-interest with the topic of LGB, but continues to read the topic discussion and then refers, by inference, to those who discuss the topic, as beligerant blisters. If this is not inciting a response then tell me what he inferred, considering his topic heading was ‘character assasination’. A beligerant blister is a constant sore that irritates and never heals. In my posts in this thread, I have applauded Terry for his continued positive contribution to the hobby with his regular charity work. I have never inferred that he is a beligerant blister and not once have criticised his character (except he took great offence to be called British. This was an innocent faux pas on my behalf, as he is a citizen of the United kingdom and thus one would assume that he is British. I wonder what his passport states as no doubt he holds a British passport?)
My reference to guns was that while I see no reason to mention guns on this site, I do not take a point of difference with him when he does refer to his sniper?/target rifles. Why therefore does discussion on a topic that he has no interest in, have such a personal impact, that he calls those involved 'beligerant blisters'? This is thread is more damming than any 'robust discussion' on the topic of LGB.Tim,
Don’t come the raw prawn with me.
I didn’t say you did say Terry did introduce the topic of guns.
I said you introduced the subject of guns into this topic. Not Terry.
Guns had not been mentioned until you did.
I also said I found the title of the subject abrasive and inciteful.
I know exactly what Tery has said in the past. In this topic he is not guilty.
I would imagine Terry now holds an EU passport just as I do.
I also see no reason to make reference to guns at this site but, as it is allowed, so be it.
In the Off Topic forum.
Or perhaps Other Hobbies.
Tony,
quote: “I have just reread all of the above and realised that Tac did not actually bring up the subject of guns.”
I am not being confrontational with you, so why the reference to coming the raw prawn with you? You initially believed that Terry introduced guns to the discussion and so you went back over the thread and came to the conclusion that it was I that introduced the subject. My response was exactly as you have discovered. I have not denied that. I have no interest in guns so if a topic arose directly concerning guns, I would not read it. If Terry has no interest in the woes of LGB then why comment on it? Terry’s last gun reference was the post in this forum section about the Euro 2008 soccer tournament, in which he states that all he sees in Switzerland are rifle ranges. I rarely read the off topic forum, so any gun reference is in the general discussion section.
Terry, states that he wants a peaceful forum and yet starts a thread with reference to beligerant blisters. He is a hypocrite.
Tim, Tim, Tim.
Please get your facts staright.
The post I made at the top of the page is the very first one I have made in this topic.
To say that I intially believed Terry introduced guns is a ver long bow to draw.
I reread the thread to make sure excatly who said what. Not to change my mind.
True it is that Terry makes refernce to guns in this General Forum which I also believe is inaprropriate.
However, twist and wriggle all you like but the bottom line is it was you that introduced the subject of guns in this topic. Not Terry.
By all means lambaste inappropriate postings, but, if you have no interests in guns why raise them in the first place.
So assuming you actually know what the OZ saying really means, “Don’t come the raw prawn with me”.
Is that confrontational enough for you?
Tony,
for your elucidation, a quote from my last posting -
“You initially believed that Terry introduced guns to the discussion and so you went back over the thread and came to the conclusion that it was I that introduced the subject. My response was exactly as you have discovered. I have not denied that.” Tony, in black and white.
I have explained several times why I made reference to the topic of guns, but sometimes the message is not comprehended, the first or second time, so here goes again. I despise guns and despise mention of them on an inappropriate forum, but to date have not made comment on this forum to such. Each time the person in question has made reference to the type of gun he owns or the location of rifle ranges, whatever, I have made no reference to it, preferring to keep it to myself. However, I used the topic of guns as an example of something that I do not comment on and so ignore when mentioned.
The originator of the thread has made reference to his-non interest in the woes of LGB, but rather than ignore the posts relating to the topic, as I would have done if not interested in the topic, he draws one’s attention to them and then insults those who may differ in opinion on the subject. His own words, beligerent blisters, is actually a most insulting reference, that not even those well-known protagonists, who have been commenting on the subject for two years, would even stoop to. Hardly the words of a supposed gentleman.
To say that to think that you believed Terry introduced guns is a very long bow to draw. Well, quote from you on your initial post -
Quote: “I have just reread all of the above and realised that Tac did not actually bring up the subject of guns.” I never said that Terry introduced the topic of guns to this thread and for you to make this quoted comment, indicates that you initially thought that might have been the case, so hardly a long bow to draw.
Egads…you two should meet one day in a pub; have a few pints and then go out back, to finally figure out which has the largest molars…get over it.
Go out and OPERATE a train on your “Roundy Roundy” pikes, then come back and tell us all about your “Experience”. It would make for a much more constructive and enjoyable thread.
Thank you
Tony,
I am able to have a differing opinion and answer a ‘challenge’ without being personally derogatory.
Tim.
You are still wrong.
I did not initially believe Terry introduced the subject of guns.
Nowhere did I say that.
If you wish to win an argument based on falsehoods please feel free to do so.
It will not aid you in your quest to “down” your oponents by attacking them for something they didn’t say or do.
You guys need to shake hands and go back to creating conspiracy theories about EPL/LGB ;);):):););):)
John Joseph, I think including your photo here might be offensive… Best wishes from Wiesen near Davos, Zubi
To the donkeys of course! Zubi
John Joseph Sauer said:I agree.At least then I can actually follow what the argument is about. Ralph
You guys need to shake hands and go back to creating conspiracy theories about EPL/LGB ;);):):););):):)
Actually for what it’s worth, I have three passports. One British [I WAS born here, that’s true enough], one for the Republic of Ireland as is my right, and one for Israel, again, that again is my right.
Oh yes, and an EU passport… as if that matters.
If I pushed hard enough I could probably get a Canadian one as well.
But three is enough for now though.
I’m indeed sorry that my post has engendered all this ruckus, and wish with all my heart-bone that you’d let it lie down and die.
tac
Richard Smith said:
Terry,You left out one item about your life; that you are the consumate gentleman! A real pleasure to know you and to have you as a friend.
Richard, everybody needs somebody they can look up to, and at only five foot ten and half, I, Sir, look up to you and count you friend.
Friends are people who know the most about you, but are your friends all the same.
I’m multiply blessed here folks, with the friends I have on the forum - THEY know who they are.
Best graders
tac