| Frimley/Burns 10:13 - Feb 13 with 12745 views | PhilTWTD |
I'm delighted to let the forum know that, following a cordial exchange of emails, viewpoints and apologies, the matter has now been resolved amicably between Frimley and Wes's dad, David, and a line has been drawn under it by all parties.
I think there was a bit of naivity from Frimley on the impact his posts might have - which I think all of us can be guilty of at times - of which he is now more acutely aware, while the rather unpleasant Instagram post at the weekend I think was the catalyst for the release of a few understandable frustrations.
Perhaps the rest of us can now move on from the matter and put it behind us, as they have, while remaining conscious that there are families behind players who may be reading posts on here and on social media. |  | | |  |
| Frimley/Burns on 15:40 - Feb 13 with 1336 views | BarcaBlue |
| Frimley/Burns on 15:02 - Feb 13 by PJH |
Makin/Frimley is the reason that I rarely post on here and I would like his absence to become permanent, but I do not doubt that he will be back soon.
My next post is likely to be on April 28th. |
TWTD is a worse place with FrimleyMakin. I've had him on ignore for ages but I don't doubt other decent members are put off contributing by his trolling, attention-seeking omnipresence. |  | | |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 with 1315 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Let him back.... on 15:18 - Feb 13 by LankHenners |
Other banned posters seem to have been given an extended break before being allowed back then swiftly removed again if they return to their old ways which I think is fair enough as a general rule.
Have to say I think reducing the issue in this case to simply people not arguing 'properly' a bit (well, very) disingenuous.
For example I never really felt comfortable with him being allowed on here after his multiple posts mocking mental health, using it as a stick to beat people and going as far as to infer that people calling the Samaritans helpline are 'attention seekers'. For my money that crosses a line that shouldn't easily be able to be crossed back.
Not bringing that up for the sake of stirring an old argument but think it puts things in better context rather than just talking about him like he was a bit of a div that posted too much.
If you applied the 'you can just ignore them' excuse to everyone you might as well let everyone who's been banned back and that obviously won't go down well. |
Blimey, I didn't know that. As you say, that's a lot worse than being a div who posted too much (if true). [Post edited 13 Feb 15:46]
|  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 with 1318 views | PhilTWTD |
| Let him back.... on 15:18 - Feb 13 by LankHenners |
Other banned posters seem to have been given an extended break before being allowed back then swiftly removed again if they return to their old ways which I think is fair enough as a general rule.
Have to say I think reducing the issue in this case to simply people not arguing 'properly' a bit (well, very) disingenuous.
For example I never really felt comfortable with him being allowed on here after his multiple posts mocking mental health, using it as a stick to beat people and going as far as to infer that people calling the Samaritans helpline are 'attention seekers'. For my money that crosses a line that shouldn't easily be able to be crossed back.
Not bringing that up for the sake of stirring an old argument but think it puts things in better context rather than just talking about him like he was a bit of a div that posted too much.
If you applied the 'you can just ignore them' excuse to everyone you might as well let everyone who's been banned back and that obviously won't go down well. |
Frimley has contacted me to dispute what you posted about mocking mental health and especially the Samaritans part as he says he'd certainly not post anything along those lines. | | | |
| Frimley/Burns on 15:44 - Feb 13 with 1292 views | N2_Blue |
| Frimley/Burns on 15:02 - Feb 13 by PJH |
Makin/Frimley is the reason that I rarely post on here and I would like his absence to become permanent, but I do not doubt that he will be back soon.
My next post is likely to be on April 28th. |
Why not just ignore them if they impact you that much? Is it that difficult? No idea what the history is but letting a person stop you from posting isn't a great place for you to be in and something i'd say you need to look at too.
(assuming there has been no element of bullying or abuse etc which i can't believe there would have been otherwise they would have been removed from the forum a long time ago). |  |
| |
| Let him back.... on 15:44 - Feb 13 with 1288 views | NeedhamChris |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Blimey, I didn't know that. As you say, that's a lot worse than being a div who posted too much (if true). [Post edited 13 Feb 15:46]
|
I agree, would be a different story. But we do appear to be lacking any evidence at this point so would take that with a degree of caution. |  |
| |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:45 - Feb 13 with 1267 views | blueasfook |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:38 - Feb 13 by hoppy |
Or if you use the more sensible 'table view' you can open a thread, and then just skim read through the whole thing, without having to click on each individual post... which means if there is a poster you rarely gain anything insightful from and think you've wasted your time reading it, just skim past it without reading. It's not an effort to read a thread like that - I never understand people that defend thread view because they don't seem to have the capacity to do that... but maybe that's just me? |
You can do the same with thread view. The arguments tend to cluster into indented sections that go off on their own branch so you can ignore them. I have tried Table View but just don't get on with it. |  |
| |
| Let him back.... on 15:47 - Feb 13 with 1261 views | Ryorry |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Blimey, I didn't know that. As you say, that's a lot worse than being a div who posted too much (if true). [Post edited 13 Feb 15:46]
|
Deleted content after seeing Phil's post near the top of this page. [Post edited 13 Feb 15:49]
|  |
| |
| I don't know about those..... on 15:49 - Feb 13 with 1242 views | Bloots |
| Let him back.... on 15:18 - Feb 13 by LankHenners |
Other banned posters seem to have been given an extended break before being allowed back then swiftly removed again if they return to their old ways which I think is fair enough as a general rule.
Have to say I think reducing the issue in this case to simply people not arguing 'properly' a bit (well, very) disingenuous.
For example I never really felt comfortable with him being allowed on here after his multiple posts mocking mental health, using it as a stick to beat people and going as far as to infer that people calling the Samaritans helpline are 'attention seekers'. For my money that crosses a line that shouldn't easily be able to be crossed back.
Not bringing that up for the sake of stirring an old argument but think it puts things in better context rather than just talking about him like he was a bit of a div that posted too much.
If you applied the 'you can just ignore them' excuse to everyone you might as well let everyone who's been banned back and that obviously won't go down well. |
...."mental health" comments, doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would have said, but of course I may be wrong.
The difference between Frimmers and other banned posters is that he's essentially been banned for being a pain in the aris, whereas those others you speak of have been banned for abusing (and worse) other posters.
It's easy to ignore posters in the majority of instances, but not when they are dishing out horrific personal abuse towards you.
Comparing Frimmers to them is a bit (well, very) disingenuous. |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let him back.... on 15:50 - Feb 13 with 1230 views | NeedhamChris |
| Let him back.... on 15:18 - Feb 13 by LankHenners |
Other banned posters seem to have been given an extended break before being allowed back then swiftly removed again if they return to their old ways which I think is fair enough as a general rule.
Have to say I think reducing the issue in this case to simply people not arguing 'properly' a bit (well, very) disingenuous.
For example I never really felt comfortable with him being allowed on here after his multiple posts mocking mental health, using it as a stick to beat people and going as far as to infer that people calling the Samaritans helpline are 'attention seekers'. For my money that crosses a line that shouldn't easily be able to be crossed back.
Not bringing that up for the sake of stirring an old argument but think it puts things in better context rather than just talking about him like he was a bit of a div that posted too much.
If you applied the 'you can just ignore them' excuse to everyone you might as well let everyone who's been banned back and that obviously won't go down well. |
Are you sure?
Would seem a bit out of character.
And before anyone asks - it took me about 15 seconds to Google frimleyblue TWTD Samaritans to find that. Fact checking is important. [Post edited 13 Feb 15:52]
| |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:50 - Feb 13 with 1213 views | Bloots |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:26 - Feb 13 by Ryorry |
You left out a 5th category - people who try to ignore him, would like to, but can't because he's on such a large number of threads that reading them with his contributions blanked out makes those many threads completely unfathomable. |
....to ignore someone.
You just ignore them and resisting clicking on their post.
I do it for a number of people on here. | |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Let him back.... on 15:52 - Feb 13 with 1181 views | blueasfook |
| Let him back.... on 15:50 - Feb 13 by NeedhamChris |
Are you sure?
Would seem a bit out of character.
And before anyone asks - it took me about 15 seconds to Google frimleyblue TWTD Samaritans to find that. Fact checking is important. [Post edited 13 Feb 15:52]
|
I don't buy it either. Someone out to cause mischief here I think. | |
| |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:54 - Feb 13 with 1169 views | hoppy |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:45 - Feb 13 by blueasfook |
You can do the same with thread view. The arguments tend to cluster into indented sections that go off on their own branch so you can ignore them. I have tried Table View but just don't get on with it. |
Like I said... some just don't seem to have the capacity to do that..   |  |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:54 - Feb 13 with 1172 views | Ryorry |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:50 - Feb 13 by Bloots |
....to ignore someone.
You just ignore them and resisting clicking on their post.
I do it for a number of people on here. |
I also do that for a few people, but then they don't post an avalanche of stuff daily, which makes it impossible to not see them.
I'd go along with the suggestion of a few others re a daily post cap. | |
| |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:55 - Feb 13 with 1149 views | blueasfook |
| There are basically 4 types of posters.... on 15:54 - Feb 13 by hoppy |
Like I said... some just don't seem to have the capacity to do that.. |
Hmmpph! | |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:55 - Feb 13 with 1151 views | hoppy |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:50 - Feb 13 by Bloots |
....to ignore someone.
You just ignore them and resisting clicking on their post.
I do it for a number of people on here. |
Sorry, what did you say? | |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:57 - Feb 13 with 1126 views | blueasfook |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:54 - Feb 13 by Ryorry |
I also do that for a few people, but then they don't post an avalanche of stuff daily, which makes it impossible to not see them.
I'd go along with the suggestion of a few others re a daily post cap. |
You always click on my posts cos you think I am awesome.
Clue: You're right. | |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:59 - Feb 13 with 1106 views | TheMoralMajority |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:54 - Feb 13 by Ryorry |
I also do that for a few people, but then they don't post an avalanche of stuff daily, which makes it impossible to not see them.
I'd go along with the suggestion of a few others re a daily post cap. |
"Nature abhors a vacuum"
There is an argument to say that he posts so much, because so many people choose to engage with him.
Unfortunately it has been true the internet over since day dot, so I can't see that changing anytime soon.
Back on topic. Good work Phil, and I'm glad all has been resolved to a satisfactory conclusion. |  |
| ...but do signatures really work? |
| |
| Let him back.... on 16:01 - Feb 13 with 1086 views | LankHenners |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 by PhilTWTD |
Frimley has contacted me to dispute what you posted about mocking mental health and especially the Samaritans part as he says he'd certainly not post anything along those lines. |
What did he mean then when he told someone 'if you want attention you should ring Samaritans'? The comment was deleted so I assumed you saw it, unless it was someone else. Maybe it was deleted by mistake and it's actually seen as acceptable to joke about things like that just to get a dig at posters you don't get on with. Only the other day he made some other odd comment about someone having a mental health issue which was clearly meant in a derogatory way in an attempt to point score against them, and again I assumed you or another admin agreed as that comment (and the ones following on from it from other posters) was also deleted.
You (or someone else) also locked a thread where he was mocking the grieving partner of Nicola Bulley by going on about how they had no right to be upset by press intrusion because he brought it upon himself. A lot of posters took umbrage with and he once again did his usual thing of doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it which naturally irked a lot of people.
Perhaps there was no genuine malicious intent but he obviously enjoyed winding people up and refused (maybe deliberately) to see when enough was enough, which I think is fairly evident from posts on more trivial matters like an opinion on a player for e.g., and never attempted to tone anything down despite you supposedly warning him about his posting style on more than one occasion. Despite what some try and say I actually think there was quite of lot of trying to reason with him and engage sensibly but he ruined it himself but just being so arrogant and stubborn it ended up further winding people up. Why I said previously I was surprised he was allowed to continue on for so long given he was clearly having quite a negative effect on the board. |  |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 16:06 - Feb 13 with 1034 views | Ryorry |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 15:57 - Feb 13 by blueasfook |
You always click on my posts cos you think I am awesome.
Clue: You're right. |
Nah, you're just magnolia that I can easily gloss over  | |
| |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 16:09 - Feb 13 with 1003 views | blueasfook |
| You don't need to use the ignore function.... on 16:06 - Feb 13 by Ryorry |
Nah, you're just magnolia that I can easily gloss over |
Ouch.
There goes my self esteem :( | |
| |
| Let him back.... on 16:11 - Feb 13 with 996 views | PhilTWTD |
| Let him back.... on 16:01 - Feb 13 by LankHenners |
What did he mean then when he told someone 'if you want attention you should ring Samaritans'? The comment was deleted so I assumed you saw it, unless it was someone else. Maybe it was deleted by mistake and it's actually seen as acceptable to joke about things like that just to get a dig at posters you don't get on with. Only the other day he made some other odd comment about someone having a mental health issue which was clearly meant in a derogatory way in an attempt to point score against them, and again I assumed you or another admin agreed as that comment (and the ones following on from it from other posters) was also deleted.
You (or someone else) also locked a thread where he was mocking the grieving partner of Nicola Bulley by going on about how they had no right to be upset by press intrusion because he brought it upon himself. A lot of posters took umbrage with and he once again did his usual thing of doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it which naturally irked a lot of people.
Perhaps there was no genuine malicious intent but he obviously enjoyed winding people up and refused (maybe deliberately) to see when enough was enough, which I think is fairly evident from posts on more trivial matters like an opinion on a player for e.g., and never attempted to tone anything down despite you supposedly warning him about his posting style on more than one occasion. Despite what some try and say I actually think there was quite of lot of trying to reason with him and engage sensibly but he ruined it himself but just being so arrogant and stubborn it ended up further winding people up. Why I said previously I was surprised he was allowed to continue on for so long given he was clearly having quite a negative effect on the board. |
I don't recall the Samaritans comment, I have to admit, although others may. I am aware of a comment which was calling into question another poster's mental health, which was unacceptable and I told him so at the time. Similarly, any comments along the lines you outline are out of order. | | | |
| Frimley/Burns on 16:15 - Feb 13 with 971 views | chicoazul |
This thread is one of the most amazing and revelatory things I have read on here in over 25 years. I feel like I live on a different planet from many people posting in here. |  |
| |
| Let him back.... on 16:16 - Feb 13 with 953 views | MJallday |
| Let him back.... on 15:43 - Feb 13 by PhilTWTD |
Frimley has contacted me to dispute what you posted about mocking mental health and especially the Samaritans part as he says he'd certainly not post anything along those lines. |
So hang on … he is still reading this forum, as he’s seen the comment!!
I bet he’s loving the attention |  |
| |
| I don't know about those..... on 16:17 - Feb 13 with 944 views | LankHenners |
| I don't know about those..... on 15:49 - Feb 13 by Bloots |
...."mental health" comments, doesn't sound like the sort of thing he would have said, but of course I may be wrong.
The difference between Frimmers and other banned posters is that he's essentially been banned for being a pain in the aris, whereas those others you speak of have been banned for abusing (and worse) other posters.
It's easy to ignore posters in the majority of instances, but not when they are dishing out horrific personal abuse towards you.
Comparing Frimmers to them is a bit (well, very) disingenuous. |
I've addressed that with Phil so will leave it there if that's alright.
Not sure I quite agree really (although I'm sure I've probably just not seen some more egregious examples) but as I said yesterday or whenever it was, everyone who's been banned has deserved it for one reason for another and I don't think anyone can really have any complaints about anyone who's been kicked into touch to be honest.
Not sure it's worth going into specific examples here really but there has been the odd instance of posters being banned not necessarily because they said something horrendous but because the nature of what and how they posted just rubbed too many people up the wrong way and made the state of the board a bit tedious. Think it's fair to say that is ultimately the case here more or less.
Think a lot of people could do with ignoring things more (even you, even me!) when it is essentially just some pointless crap, although I know it can be hard when someone's either calling someone out or deliberately posting about something or in a way that is clearly trying to irk a certain person. The latter I do sympathise with Phil and Gav having to manage as the 'instigator' can always swear blind they weren't actually doing what it looks quite a bit like what they were doing.
The daft thing is if Town win a couple or so games all these issues shrink right down to next to nothing. | |
| |
| Let him back.... on 16:23 - Feb 13 with 887 views | LankHenners |
| Let him back.... on 16:11 - Feb 13 by PhilTWTD |
I don't recall the Samaritans comment, I have to admit, although others may. I am aware of a comment which was calling into question another poster's mental health, which was unacceptable and I told him so at the time. Similarly, any comments along the lines you outline are out of order. |
It was deleted pretty swiftly as I remember going to reply to it to say 'wtf' basically but the page refreshed and it was gone.
Think part of the problem was some people were quite happy to stick up for him as he regularly wound up people they also didn't get on with and so were happy to see him as the innocent party a lot of the time, using him as a bit of a proxy to have a go at said posters, even when it pretty obviously takes two to tango as they say. Leads to quite a bit of sniping from the sidelines and people from all angles getting involved a bit unnecessarily. IMO removing the core cause of all that is a sensible approach and as I said should have happened sooner.
Essentially you asked for people's two pence and that's mine, fwiw, happy to accept others differ. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
