Janet Street-Porter

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:41 pm

Esqui wrote:

I replied to it anyway. But I'll reiterate it here:

I completely missed the wood for the trees, and I'm sorry, people. Whilst looking through Guardian's posts to find specific examples of him trolling and breaking the rules, I managed to ignore the effect his posts were having. He was trolling in a subtle way, and I mistook the people reacting to him as blowing things out of proportion.

In short, he's gone; I'm an idiot. Enjoy your evening.

Delia's recipe for Fast roasted chicken with lemon & tarragon.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:10 pm

Esqui wrote:

...run by First Great Western

Rubbish. You actually work sometimes. FGW, however... :wink:

JuanTwoThree · **Posted:** Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:39 pm

Shit. That's how I roast chicken. Which means that all this time I've been Delia Smith without even realising it.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:41 pm

Delia Smith = Spartacus

ACG · **Posted:** Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:46 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Delia Smith = Spartacus

ha! and now i'm picturing that famous scene, only with a bunch of people all standing up one after another shouting "lestbe'avin'you!"

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:28 am

I'm Delia Smith

Fflaps · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:25 am

I'm Delia Smith

Lord Brett · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:20 am

mojojojo wrote:

Quote:

In short, he's gone; I'm an idiot. Enjoy your evening.

Don't sweat it. Nice one.

I feel bad asking for people to be banned from anywhere but this last thing was too much.

I hope Malcom Armsteen and Lord Brett come back now, and the others that left.

Ta daa - I'm back!

I've never in my life asked for anyone to be banned from a board before, but the situation had just got ridiculous.

Thanks Esqui, and let's hope normal service will now be resumed.

moonshien · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:06 am

Esqui wrote:

I replied to it anyway. But I'll reiterate it here:

I completely missed the wood for the trees, and I'm sorry, people. Whilst looking through Guardian's posts to find specific examples of him trolling and breaking the rules, I managed to ignore the effect his posts were having. He was trolling in a subtle way, and I mistook the people reacting to him as blowing things out of proportion.

In short, he's gone; I'm an idiot. Enjoy your evening.

So, from now on, if people co-ordinate their reaction to someone even if, as you say, there are no specific examples of trolling in ther posts, they'll succeed in getting them banned as well?

Lord Brett · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:22 am

Can you really see us getting it together to co-ordinate our reaction?

Besides, as a couple of us have made clear, we don't ask for people to be banned for a laugh but The Guardian had poisoned the atmosphere on the forums so much that a debating forum had been turned into a tedious arguing shop.

AOB · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:24 am

moonshien wrote:

Esqui wrote:

I replied to it anyway. But I'll reiterate it here:

I completely missed the wood for the trees, and I'm sorry, people. Whilst looking through Guardian's posts to find specific examples of him trolling and breaking the rules, I managed to ignore the effect his posts were having. He was trolling in a subtle way, and I mistook the people reacting to him as blowing things out of proportion.

In short, he's gone; I'm an idiot. Enjoy your evening.

So, from now on, if people co-ordinate their reaction to someone even if, as you say, there are no specific examples of trolling in ther posts, they'll succeed in getting them banned as well?

I'm laughing because after the Guardian was banned last night I typed out a post saying you'd come on whining when you found out. I previewed the post for typos but then I thought better of it and decided not to submit. With the amount of antagonism you cause on this forum it's mystifying as to how you've only got a mild caution once or twice. Before you twist my words into the usual "not listening to opposing views" line it's nothing to do with that. It's the way you put your opposing views. Oh what's the point- you've been told this several times before and it just goes on. I can only assume you have dirt or dodgy photos of the mods to escape any action, such is their leniency with you.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:46 am

+100...

moonshien · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:01 am

AOB wrote:

I'm laughing because after the Guardian was banned last night I typed out a post saying you'd come on whining when you found out. I previewed the post for typos but then I thought better of it and decided not to submit. With the amount of antagonism you cause on this forum it's mystifying as to how you've only got a mild caution once or twice. Before you twist my words into the usual "not listening to opposing views" line it's nothing to do with that. It's the way you put your opposing views. Oh what's the point- you've been told this several times before and it just goes on. I can only assume you have dirt or dodgy photos of the mods to escape any action, such is their leniency with you.

Maybe the way I put my opposing views is dictated by the way my initial opposing views were rounded upon and attacked from all sides. Debate is a two way street, and if things get out of hand then all contributors must take some responsibility.

I'm happy to clear the air and start again, but if certain contributors are going to jump on every single comment I make, opposing or otherwise, then that will prove impossible,

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:07 am

YOU'RE happy to 'clear the air and start again'!
Perhaps those of us you've insulted over the last few months might have an opinion on that, too...

moonshien · **Posted:** Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:09 am

I tried.

Janet Street-Porter

Who is online