I know why it was removed, got a perfect explanation.

I’ve never said i don’t believe them, if you look through the posts.

We have to presume it’s a bug or a hack and it’s ok to ask the question.

But from my experience of the guys there is more chance of Mouldy and CCU running naked across BP at half time to take penalties than to remove something for the trust .

But the way they have responded to this issue makes it look as though they have in fact removed something for the Trust. If they haven't, then why not get NS set up with a new account so he can begin posting again? They are behaving just like the BOD, fobbing us off and expecting us to believe a load of waffle.

I’ve made it quite clear to a mod, last few days, how I feel about this - you can take that whichever way you want Bob.

I know why it was removed, got a perfect explanation.

So what has happened?

I’ve never said i don’t believe them, if you look through the posts.

It's difficult to believe them when the alternative explanations don't seem very plausible.

Day 22 now.....Still no word on when NS posts will be restored.

Its as obvious as day 1 when it was said he is blocked . It isnt happening for reasons unnamed . But it is a safe bet that it has zippo to do with the Trust but carry on until day 61 and maybe Santa will deliver a surprise for you

Its as obvious as day 1 when it was said he is blocked . It isnt happening for reasons unnamed .

If that's the case, why tell your users that you have no idea what happened to his account? Seriously, I don't understand why they are struggling to do a basic thing and just tell us what's gone on. It surely can't be difficult?

Because its nothing to do with anyone apart from them and NS . If it happens to you or me it then becomes our problem.

I suppose it’s a general social media thing but should all social media accounts be verified?

Despite what others may think I’ve no idea who Kessler is and no idea who Bob is and many others.

Maybe something/law should be in place so every account is verified on social media. Probably too much big brother though, being anon has it’s uses, and would stop whistleblowing.

It would solve many issues In seconds though.

I dont know you . But i have met NS a few times years ago. Thats why i know he has a handle on the wrinkles in life.
The anonymity thing certainly stopped Kessler getting a visit from him a while back and probably saved his/ her job at BP so yes it has its moments . But then again if there was no anonymity then would Kessler have wound NS back then. For and against tbh .
I do think that if you are asking awkward questions that you wouldnt ask at a forum then you should give your real name and not hide behind a username . After all everyone answering is known .
Just my opinion.

I know why it was removed, got a perfect explanation.

So what has happened?

I’ve never said i don’t believe them, if you look through the posts.

It's difficult to believe them when the alternative explanations don't seem very plausible.

The post I put up got removed, it contained information the mods didn’t want in the public domain - I respected their decision.

I don’t believe it was a bug either

I dont know you . But i have met NS a few times years ago. Thats why i know he has a handle on the wrinkles in life.
The anonymity thing certainly stopped Kessler getting a visit from him a while back and probably saved his/ her job at BP so yes it has its moments . But then again if there was no anonymity then would Kessler have wound NS back then. For and against tbh .
I do think that if you are asking awkward questions that you wouldnt ask at a forum then you should give your real name and not hide behind a username . After all everyone answering is known .
Just my opinion.

Yep for and against.

The trust had a policy where they’d only ask questions if they knew who was asking them, but changed to allow usernames.

I wouldnt answer either because if they cant give their name then why should i give an answer . Different if they give their name but then again i am not an owner or trust board member so its unlikely to happen but that would be my stance .

I wouldnt answer either because if they cant give their name then why should i give an answer .

I don't really understand the logic behind this. Why do you need their name? The answer to a question will be the same regardless of who asks it, so I don't see why name is relevant. It's almost like you view it as a trade/exchange where if I ask a question, you get to ask something in return.

Depends if its personal. If you ask the trust for example at cusg did you ask the forum to remove NS . Then you should have the courage to be open yourself when you ask something like that . In fact Mullen would and has in the past .
If you are asking the trust atcusg for example how many members voted at the agm then you have a point .
If it was me I would answer the second but refuse the first as point of principle. But if it was from Mullen then I would answer as he was interested enough to be up front and give his name like in the real world .
If it was you I would not answer as it looks as if you are wanting to know stuff while hiding yourself.
Unless your name is Christopher Rice that is

Or Clifford Rose even !! Getting my actors mixed up !!

Depends if its personal. If you ask the trust for example at cusg did you ask the forum to remove NS . Then you should have the courage to be open yourself when you ask something like that . In fact Mullen would and has in the past .
If you are asking the trust atcusg for example how many members voted at the agm then you have a point .

What's the difference, why is me asking one of those ok but the other not?

If it was you I would not answer as it looks as if you are wanting to know stuff while hiding yourself.

I do, although I'm struggling to see why that would apparently cause you any difficulty in answering the question? If you don't know the answer that's fair enough, but if you do know it surely you are capable of answering regardless of whether I give my name?

This all sounds like you're trying to make asking questions conditional on the person giving their name. I don't understand the point of that because I don't see why you would need to know that in order to provide an answer. Not having a go at you I just don't see the relevance?

If you want to know dont hide behind the couch while you ask like grown ups do . Why do you want to know personal stuff while hiding yourself isnt on tbh Eg why do you wear skinny jeans at your age ? Tbh i would have said tell me your name first as an answer to who ever asked it . And it would be perfectly fair .
But it is unlikely to happen as skinny jeans would never fit !!! And hell will be a cold place before i was in a position like that. But on a seperate thing his answer was funny. He seems a good guy

Tbh i would have said tell me your name first as an answer to who ever asked it . And it would be perfectly fair .

I disagree, I think that is a rather immature response. If I ask CUSG a question it's because I feel that question is relevant and that their answer will help contribute to civil discussion on the topic. You seem less interested in that, and more interested in trying to prove a point. You obviously think that if I ask a question, you should automatically get to ask me one "in exchange". So your question isn't really in good faith, it's just being vexatious. That isn't helpful to a constructive debate. If I am wrong about that you can correct me but that is certainly the impression I get reading your responses.


Over three weeks now and we still don't know what has happened to NS posts, but by now,I think most will have drawn their own conclusions. I won't go on about it any more, but I think the mods have behaved quite poorly. "Independent" forum hmmmm, I have my doubts.

I didn’t like the trusts policy at the time either.

But I could understand it.

I agree Kes, I think people have made up their own conclusions.

If you’re posting at 04.04 you can come and work for me in my chicken business. You know IT, but what’s your Malay like? Could do with a Singapore speaker?

I'll want paid an equal amount of any money you make

No problem.
I’d have to know who you are though, for tax purposes.
Don’t want to be a tax dodger.

Don’t want to be a tax dodger.

Hypocrite. I remember you saying you'd make 6p profit in your ISA. Think how many roads and hospitals that would build if you hadn't been selfish enough to shield it from the tax man.

The trust board members could have an account on here and remain anonymous I suppose Bob.

I know one made himself known, but left the trust board and one more. No idea if anyone else posts under a pseudonym.

I think the mods did offer the trust an account on here but wasn’t taken up.

The mods do make themselves known on here and that’s fair game.

I think the mods did offer the trust an account on here but wasn’t taken up.

I remember that being suggested and thought it would be a good idea although I appreciate their preference is not to have an account here.

I don't think I know anyone's true identity on here and have no wish to know. I just come on here for banter and to exchange views on topics of interest.
You have to provide your/a name and email when you register, the record of which I presume is kept somewhere.
If everybody had to divulge their true identity it would inevitable stifle conversation, probably lead to many more personal vendettas and insinuations and the board would soon become moribund............and goodness only knows what would have happened to Kessler.
Aren't most message boards anonymous?
I presume Bob won't answer that unless I tell him my real name!

We all know TSW . Sacked . If you slate any employer you would be fired .
But my point was why should they answer questions that are often snide and personal and folk wouldnt ask them at a forum so they won't get an answer . Why hide behind a name and expect one of the Mods to do it for you. I just think if you wont ask yourself its not good form to expect others to do it for you .
If i want to know anything i will ask myself or one of the group's and they will know me. Seems straight forward to me . If you expect the club to be open with us then the least we can do is be the same with them. Mullen has been quite vocal about stuff but he is open about who he is and that is to be admired . Sniping while hiding behind a username is a version could be classed as a version of online bullying .

If someone libelled me on this board and I took legal action against that person (s) would the mods have to disclose names. Just a thought.

I suppose the police could ask the MB for records, if it got that far.

It’s a good question because if I called you a “badger murdering old codger” you could try a liable claim as you know who I am. It’s a wild example but you get my drift.

But if Kessler, for example, called you a “badger murdering old codger” Then it would be hard to prove who he/she is because he/she hides their identity.

That’s why many people on twitter etc want social media protections/verifications with all the trolling their is.

I'll accept the old codger bit, but badger murdering I draw the line . Where do you get those ideas from

But my point was why should they answer questions that are often snide and personal

They shouldn't, but if this is your concern surely all that matters is the question itself. Is it being asked in good faith or is someone just being snide? I personally think my questions are fair. I ask them because I want a civil discussion on whatever topic and I'd genuinely like to hear what the other person has to contribute. Can I ask which question(s) in particular you feel are snide?

If you slate any employer you would be fired .

Perhaps that's why some of us don't provide our name.

I'll accept the old codger bit, but badger murdering I draw the line . Where do you get those ideas from

I made it up Walter, obviously, but it was the first thing that came into my mind as Brian May was on TV. I know he isn’t a badger muddling old codger but it seemed to fit at the time.

Them fekkking badgers have had it coming. Well done Walt

If someone libelled me on this board and I took legal action against that person (s) would the mods have to disclose names. Just a thought.

They could be compelled to, yes. In your case, Mullen would need to show it was "substantially true" that you are an old codger

I've admitted I'm an old codger, nowt wrong with that in my book. There'll be a few more on this board I can guarantee that. How would you describe yourself then Kess

How would you describe yourself then Kess

A socialist.

I should start a libel case against Laffy for calling me a capitalist. That insult has caused me great distress.

"Latest Member: NORTHERNSOUL2"

NS has returned?