Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"


Sean, beautifully brutal but inconcise.

Have you decided that you don't quite care for my use of the word censorship? Perhaps then, that was a tad harsh.

Or, were you simply offended that I dared to speak out against EDF Admin fav 'The Actress'?

If the latter, then a consice explanation as to why 'The Actress' (in all its praising glory)thread was allowed 'lounge' status for weeks, as opposed to my critique of said pub, which, survived for less than a pitiful two hours, is justified.


Politely awaiting your defensive (and as read before) aggresive return.

"


Where to begin?


Your use of censorship wasn't a "tad harsh" - it's completely, factually incorrect


How was I offended? Why even use that word? You solicited feedback, I offered some, It is you who seems put out


Asking why some posts stay in the Lounge for a sustained period whilst others are moved quicker seems a fair question to me


That isn't what you did however - you still seek some martyrdome status where you are being ?censored? and your posts don't ?survive? and when you posts are moved to the wrong place you don't post in the Ask Admin section but start a whole new thread in another wrong section, making it all about YOU. It seems a bit over the top don?t you think?


So why do some posts get moved more quickly than others? A bunch of reasons, among them:


1) There isn't a huge team moderating this place and stuff gets missed - feel free, as KK says, to use the Report this thread button

2) A thread can appear be about one thing but had a more general interest than the business in hand. I think Admin posted quite a long reason a few pages back in the original Actress thread as to why he was leaving it there for the time being. You might disagree but it?s fair to say that all business threads get moved as soon as they are seen to the correct area. You might not notice it because you didn?t start the thread but it happens


As for the examples pearson mentions ? JD Wetherspoon isn?t an ED business ? there is a discussion about the possibility of them moving to the area which is wider topic. If the were to open and started posting offers and announcements then they too would be moved.

Sainsbury?s ? I have missed any threads about Sainsbury?s business. I have seen a couple about rats in a park which involve the possible oversight of Sainsbo?s as a caretaker but that really isn?t the business they are in and the issue remains rats in a local park

Oh and multiple threads about the same topic is a perennial pain in the proverbial. You can?t stop ALL of them, and those that you make people complain. But many do get stopped, quite rightly, as the place would be overrun and unreadable if they weren?t


But again it?s probably more practical/time-constraint reasons than discrimination against any posters as to which do and don?t get shut for being repeat threads


The ?old? Actress thread is very much live and has been on the first page consistently, so is still the goto thread. If it had been dormant and on page 3 or 4 of the business section it?s possible that the newer thread would stand a better chance of ?surviving?

this thread for example


It might end up getting moved to the business section but at the moment it's juuuust about more pertinent to "ED as an area and the vibe it offers" rather than about specific businesses. But only just


I'm pretty sure when it gets moved snorky/huncamunca won't start several threads asking whyohwhy etc. Although he might now

Atticus, I have done as you asked and read this and the other threads and I have decided.


You are being unreasonable. And also a bit petulant.


As others have already said, you're not being censored or oppressed, to say you are is hyperbolic and trivialises those important words. Your threads were moved and locked, because they were duplicates and in the wrong place; it was housekeeping not censorship.


There is no conspiracy or favouritism towards the Actress, many of the posts on the original, and still busy, thread are criticisms.


You choose to post on a forum that is run by Admin and his team in their own time. It's Admin's forum and his rules. You broke them and so were moderated. There is nothing mysterious or sinister about that, it's very very simple.

"Shouldn't this be moved to about the forum!!"


As it goes, one thread already has been; strictly speaking this is duplication and is asking to be locked, but as it's also quite funny I suspect it may survive as lounge material.


* edited for for harshness of judgement *


Edited one time(s) at 13:31 O'Clock

'Matryrdome', 'petulance' 'menatl'. Great, I've said that the use of the word 'censorship' was harsh, I think some of your language is to.

Anyway, I know my place (there's that martyr in me again).


Keep up the great work though, this forum is a great asset to the area and long may it continue!

I have to say that I disagree about using the old Actress thread. If I wanted to know what time it closed on a friday, or what beer they did, I'd ask on the old thread. However, I think this was a more specific issue, that was turning in to a discussion about footy in pubs. In my opinion, a title change would have been appropriate.


Agree that words like censorship are just plain wrong here, but also find some responses here to be rather patronising to the OP.

Keef you say patronising, but what else to do with someone who spent so much time starting new threads screaming blue murder


I agree the thread in question could have been retitled and a discussion about pubs that show football without sound would be useful but it did seem to be specifically about the Actress and despite what you say, the current Actress thread covers everything from lighting, glasses to food drink and everything in between


I also spent what I thought a fair bit of time explaining why some threads get dealt with one way and others another but still we hear comments like Dorothy?s


?bizarre special treatment afforded to The Actress?


Which I can?t understand on any level


Remember ? no post was removed, just moved to the relevant section. I don?t see any need for any outcry (and by outcry I mean the 3 threads Atticus started claiming he was being censored and removed with plenty of people weighing in to support it) The posts are there. Negative or positive about the Actress. Noone is stopping anyone from reading or posting them

After a good time spent in refection, I realise the extra posts were a little over the top, to say the least. I was at the time just quite annoyed about the original issue I had posted about ie, no audio on the footy

Sean, take your points ... in all honesty I'm not very au fait with debating on this forum and in future would take a different approach.


I will however back Keef's observation that some posts were patronising, notably the one by Mockney Piers suggesting 'chips on shoulders'. Simply untrue and a personal attack.


Like I've said previously, keep up the good work.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...