Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I had a post reported and removed because it started with FFS.


FFS!


Is this really so offensive?


Plus, is it OK for somebody to behave badly towards someone else on the forum, but not OK for somebody else (me in this case) to object to that behaviour?


This is a serious question, as there seems to be some inconsistency here.


Now I'll wait for somebody to report this. 🙄

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/275283-forum-decorum/
Share on other sites

Worried if you are starting to have your posts removed Sue - in the offensive stakes I think you are pretty low down. I throw the odd 'suggestive' word in which I think is fine in a light hearted way, but at times you just have to respond in the way that you did to something ridiculous. But I have been 'told off' by amin and did have some stuff removed which I didn't think was an issue. In his/her defence admin is generally light touch and also there are always the dangers of defamation on social media platforms. I'll see you when tea's ready (sorry an awful adolescent phrase from long ago that I'd never use on this site, and not aimed at anyone)

Administrator Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's more about wading in with an FFS opinion

> about a for sale item. It's not necessary to join

> in.



I waded in because the person selling the item has identified and defamed a well known local business person, and those posts have been allowed to stay on the thread, but my post objecting to his or her behaviour was removed


And the person who reported it specifically said he had done it because I "swore" at the OP


The person in question said she had already apologised to him, but still he named her, and had apparently also sent her a very rude message.


As I said, apparent inconsistency in who is considered to be at fault here.


And I thought I had made some valid and relevant points eg that it was a good idea to take mobile numbers of people coming to collect an item, and also that there might be very good reasons why someone was unable to come or let the seller know, eg illness.


But I must admit, people who say "no time wasters" do put my back up. I once came upon someone who used this term about anybody who came to look at an item and then didn't buy it 🙄

ken78 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> why did sue swear and say it was something else

> did she think we don't know what it meant like we

> are thick ?? i don't know any one know



Ken78, as it was you who reported me to admin and accused me of bullying, I think you've got quite a cheek to post on this thread.


Surely everybody knows what FFS means. It's a very commonly used expression of exasperation.


I feel like using it right now.

In a previous job, I got summoned to the big boss's office got a bollocking for using the word 'bollocks' in a message to a colleague when referring to my thoughts on something that someone at another organisation had said publically (the colleague didn't complain, it was IT/Big brother who raised it)


At first, I thought the big boss was joking when he said 'can you explain why you have been swearing on company IT systems?'


I responded by saying I didn't think 'bollocks' was a swear word...as it was openly used in a Newcastle Brown ale advert in the US and Australia....he didn't seem to have any sense of humour or sense of embarrassment that he 'had to say something' as it had been raised in the internal system.


Maybe it's becuase I didn't grow up in this country (as it is a distinctly British expression) and perhaps it's more offensive than I realise?


I think FFS falls very much into a similar bucket....

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In a previous job, I got summoned to the big

> boss's office got a bollocking for using the word

> 'bollocks' in a message to a colleague when

> referring to my thoughts on something that someone

> at another organisation had said publically (the

> colleague didn't complain, it was IT/Big brother

> who raised it)

>


So when a shiny new IT system to check words in emails comes in the system should be built according to company requirements in consultation with management, NOT the company modifying it's beliefs and systems to fit in with the IT system they brought off the shelf.


But thats what tends to happen and then the company finds itself restricted by the system developer in what it can say :). We'll all be sending identical emails before you know it.

So when a shiny new IT system to check words in emails comes in the system should be built according to company requirements in consultation with management, NOT the company modifying it's beliefs and systems to fit in with the IT system they brought off the shelf.


But thats what tends to happen and then the company finds itself restricted by the system developer in what it can say smiling smiley. We'll all be sending identical emails before you know it.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In a previous job, I got summoned to the big

> boss's office got a bollocking for using the word

> 'bollocks' in a message to a colleague when

> referring to my thoughts on something that someone

> at another organisation had said publically (the

> colleague didn't complain, it was IT/Big brother

> who raised it)

>

> At first, I thought the big boss was joking when

> he said 'can you explain why you have been

> swearing on company IT systems?'

>

> I responded by saying I didn't think 'bollocks'

> was a swear word...as it was openly used in a

> Newcastle Brown ale advert in the US and

> Australia....he didn't seem to have any sense of

> humour or sense of embarrassment that he 'had to

> say something' as it had been raised in the

> internal system.

>

> Maybe it's becuase I didn't grow up in this

> country (as it is a distinctly British expression)

> and perhaps it's more offensive than I realise?

>

> I think FFS falls very much into a similar

> bucket....



See, TORY PARTY HQ writ large

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

    • Tommy has been servicing our boiler for a number of years now and has also carried out repairs for us.  His service is brilliant; he’s reliable, really knowledgeable and a lovely guy.  Very highly recommended!
    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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