YANBU MF

Jetfire

Alot of people saying "I've heard worse in the pub". He talked about doing a sexual act when he was 14 with another 14 year old in thread about father hood and the asked who had a daughter. He'd be barred from my local, just saying...

also, why do i need to know where i stand with him? It's not like I'm likely to work with him etc.

underdog

Jetfire;453489" said:

Alot of people saying "I've heard worse in the pub". He talked about doing a sexual act when he was 14 with another 14 year old in thread about father hood and the asked who had a daughter. He'd be barred from my local, just saying...

Yeah, I think the big thing that stands out for me was I mentioned something about my 12 year old step daughter (can't remember what) and his next post was about fingering 13 year olds and when I asked if he still done it he mentioned it wasn't illegal in all countries. That's a little too far, maybe I just took it personally, but in pub, I'd probably have not thought before I threw a punch or 12.

holnrew

I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.

Emp_Fab

Well, those aren't 'accusations' Holn - they're fact.  Easily verified by a quick search.

not_the_dj

Judging by his sig he's got issues with the Daddies. Maybe he's more of a HP or Heinz kinda guy.

underdog

holnrew;453497" said:

I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.

That's not an accusation dude, it actually happened, in fact reading this thread again someone mentions similar before me.

After that I put him on ignore list.

CabbageCat

underdog said:

holnrew;453497" said:

I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.

That's not an accusation dude, it actually happened, in fact reading this thread again someone mentions similar before me.

After that I put him on ignore list.

It's a fact that he said it. It's also a fact that the age of consent is 13 in some countries but for some reason some people still get narky when people mention it.

underdog

CabbageCat;453632" said:

underdog said:

holnrew;453497" said:I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.

That's not an accusation dude, it actually happened, in fact reading this thread again someone mentions similar before me.



After that I put him on ignore list.












It's a fact that he said it. It's also a fact that the age of consent is 13 in some countries but for some reason some people still get narky when people mention it.

I think it was more that it was directed at me when I was taking about a 12 year old relative, which ever way you dress it up he was trying to be over controversial as usual. Why in a thread about being parents would you mention sexual acts with 13 year old girls?

CabbageCat

underdog said:

CabbageCat;453632" said:

underdog said:

holnrew;453497" said:I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.

That's not an accusation dude, it actually happened, in fact reading this thread again someone mentions similar before me.



After that I put him on ignore list.












It's a fact that he said it. It's also a fact that the age of consent is 13 in some countries but for some reason some people still get narky when people mention it.

I think it was more that it was directed at me when I was taking about a 12 year old relative, which ever way you dress it up he was trying to be over controversial as usual. Why in a thread about being parents would you mention sexual acts with 13 year old girls?

Because 13 year old girls have parents? I dunno - things just come up. We're talking about it in a thread about Drew.

Anyway, that's not really relevant to my veiled point. You were defending your lack of "accusation" by saying it's a fact. I was clarifying that just because one states a fact doesn't make one beyond reproach.

frankus

you could have just said YANBU

underdog

CabbageCat;453655" said:

underdog said:

CabbageCat;453632" said:underdog said:



holnrew;453497" said:I think it might be unfair to make accusations while he's not around to defend himself.



That's not an accusation dude, it actually happened, in fact reading this thread again someone mentions similar before me.







After that I put him on ignore list.

























It's a fact that he said it. It's also a fact that the age of consent is 13 in some countries but for some reason some people still get narky when people mention it.

I think it was more that it was directed at me when I was taking about a 12 year old relative, which ever way you dress it up he was trying to be over controversial as usual. Why in a thread about being parents would you mention sexual acts with 13 year old girls?










Because 13 year old girls have parents? I dunno - things just come up. We're talking about it in a thread about Drew.Anyway, that's not really relevant to my veiled point. You were defending your lack of "accusation" by saying it's a fact. I was clarifying that just because one states a fact doesn't make one beyond reproach.

Ok then

ICBM

I like Drew. He contributes a lot that's positive. I know he can sometimes go too far, but I'd much rather have him around than someone who seems to mainly contribute negativity while appearing to stay within the rules.

chillidoggy

I don't always agree with some of the things Drew says, he could however tone down some of the more 'personal' comments, but I have never been upset by anything he's written thus far. I think it depends on why you're here (by that I mean the Off-Topic and Speaker's Corner sections of the Fretboard), and your personality. I must be more liberal-minded than some.

I ask myself this "Do I want to read posts by a lobotomised Drew"?

maltingsaudio

Yer I think Drew adds a certain colour to the forum, what I don't get is why if anyone is being deliberately antagonistic we all don't just ignore it, or is it secretly we relish a good old dust up? The purpose of a forum is to discuss what you want to and ignore what you don't

DLM

monquixote said:

My PCs knackered at the moment so I can't do a long reply, but suffice to say drew isn't banned and is more than welcome to return in a couple of weeks if he so chooses. 

Bad sort of Wow! awarded. If he's on a short term ban it's still a ban and fiddling with the nomenclature doesn't help...

lloyd

Like it or not people love a good argument on a forum-even if they're not participating. I know I'm guilty of it, but a shitfest of abuse is never too much fun after a while as it becomes boring. 

We don't want this place to be TDPRI do we? I know I don't, I think the balance here is pretty good.

randomhandclaps

ICBM said:

I like Drew. He contributes a lot that's positive. I know he can sometimes go too far, but I'd much rather have him around than someone who seems to mainly contribute negativity while appearing to stay within the rules.

I completely agree.  I like Drew.  There are points when I totally understand why he is seen as going too far and in that sense makes himself a target for both criticism and provocation.  Again though he does contribute a lot of good things to this forum and his actual musical based contributions are well up there with anyone and far ahead of some of those who take every available to bait and or complain.

To be honest for the last few weeks I have noticed Drew biting on more stuff than he had been.  In a human sense (as I would with any member) I would assume that that may be a sign of issues, stress or concerns outside of this little world that may be affecting them and in turn wouldn't keep pushing an argument.  That's not to say people are always right or wrong, but that every dispute has to have at least two parties to contribute.

For me Phil is a prime example of positive behaviour in this sense.  Him and Drew have some starkly different views on certain subjects, debate can becomes relatively heated but Phil is usually one of the first to say "OK, fair enough!" and all moves on with no agenda.

It's strange as whilst people are stating 'facts' as examples about what they see as Drew's crass behaviour (which I am not arguing with as an opinion of defending in any way) certain 'facts' get overlooked in balance.  Like when Drew posted saying how he was missing his deceased father and someone posted "So is this where I can storm in and start making retarded jokes about dad's now?".  Or in the thread regarding Female Comedians (which wasn't started by Drew) when one members first and sole contribution was to address Drew with "But mate - I'm not saying you are, but from a lot of your posts here you do come across as such a twat".  Or after Drew was placed in the cooler, to refocus his attitude, we have a complete repeat of last time with comments (ironically) like "Ah, I believe The Bully In Chief can't be with us tonight, so perhaps we are allowed opinions after all.  O ho.".

I'm not condemning the above comments as any worse than Drew is capable of, but are they any better?  Are they constructive communication or are they provocative? 

As underdog stated earlier about a comment Drew made -"I just took it personally, but in pub, I'd probably have not thought before I threw a punch or 12.".  Could we all not be forgiven for equally taking the above comments personally? Just to clarify none of the above comments were made by @underdog.

What is an interesting point though is this comment "in pub, I'd probably have not thought before I threw a punch or 12.".  As anyone who has ever been in any real social environment would realise that the supercilious sniping of some are likely to evoke that reaction just as quick as jokes about sex with 12 year old relatives or dead dads. 

Paul_C

I feel almost all of it is down to people ignoring rule 1, but like fouls in the penalty area at corners it's hard to penalise every single infraction.

lloyd

The problem with Rule 1 and enforcing it is that my interpretation of somebody being a dick is not necessarily what yours or others would be. 

chillidoggy

/\ Wis.