FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Clevelandfire on August 15, 2008, 05:12:12 PM
-
It would appear that Chris Houston has had to field complaints against posts I made on the B&B in uproar forum.
Chris fairly in my opinion expressed that the language I used could be construde as impolite but nothing more as some members have tried to imply. I am a Clevelander, I am long in tooth and do tend to say whats on my mind. Thats the way i am rightly or wrongly. If my tone, manner of the way in which i discuss things offends anyone I apologise however bear in mind it could be the way you interpret it.You can not judge the tone easily with written word. However my comments were taken out of context and if read again may I beileve exonerate me from some of the claims made, if as Chris said sometimes they weren't always polite.
I would note for instance however that swearing was removed from posts which were written by others.
and that is why Chris removed it. Swaapc was always welcome to reply back to me in a similar tone to the post I wrote to him but I have never sworn on this forum and would feel it totally inappropriate to do so, he choise to swear and that is why his post was removed as opposed to there being some fire service conspiracy to silence its critics through Chris.
I feel my comments were valid and that when several fire safety professionals both fire service and non fire service offered good polite, kind, sound reasonable advice as to why certain requirements were made in terms of fire safety to the gentleman concerned. All we had back was how he felt the fire service were completely over the top and that how fires do not occur in B&Bs. Fine I still had no problem with that and we pointed out still kindly and politely how the gentleman could challenge what he perceived may have been a fire officer being too prescriptive yet the argument rolled on despite several other posts that came in ebfore explaining quite clearly enforcement procedures fire safety methodology which he had not read.
It then got to the point where i believe we were encountering someone on a mission to deliberatley rally support using wild claims. There was first the prohibition notice that was mentioned which could not be issued because the officers ran out of time? Ive never heard of that ever before and many of us questioned it. Misinformed? or deliberately added to try and score points? if the latter it back fired
Then there were the gentleman's guests who in their droves just out of the blue commented to him how intrusive and nonsensical the installed fire precautions were. I find that a wee bit suspicious to be honest. Was it truly all guests? or maybe one or two? or perhaps none?
Where criticism of the fire service or any other organisation is made Im always happy to take that on board and take on the chin if necessary. I know the fire service isn't perfect by any means. And we do get things wrong. I know the B&B industry can be very much a cut throat business with some of the smaller B&Bs struggling to survive.
We all offered advice on how to help, and listen to Dave from the B&B Associations viewpoints and others which I felt were balanced and asked legitimate questions of the fire service and policy makers
But to me the sentiment of the poster who by the way said " i work 365 days a year" in one breath " but oh i dont want your sympathy" in the next just did nothing for the debate.
It isnt me or anyone else making that gentleman work 365 days a year. Im sure we all work hard. But it seemed to suggest that just because the gentleman worked that ammount of time somehow he should be excused the requirement for fire precautions.
I pointed out that the gentleman might wish to protect something he works so hard for which fell mainly on deaf ears. I also pointed out that maybe perhaps if it was that much hard work and hassle for him to try something else.
Then we had the barrage of " Im going to have to close the B&B" yet we had all pointed out that fire precautions need not cost too much but no approach was made by the gentleman to expand on or explain what the fire officer had asked him to do / provide .I found that odd.
As a member on many forums I have witnessed deliberately false or misleading posters with hidden agendas trying to stir things up with half truths etc or say things which are just not true. I dont know if this is the case or not here, but I just feel that we are busy people who give out our advice free of charge and try and help people yet the gentleman concerned just would not listen to us. You can't debate like that and you can't help people like that so I decided to point that out to him, ifonly to try and make him pursue a different angle and actually ask constructive questions.
I have no beef with the B&B association or industry and will happily debate anything with anyone so long as it is sensible, grown up and constructive. If I'm wrong I'm man enough to admit it and move on.
Reading the posts again several members also conveyed sinicism toward the landlord because of some of the things he said. Admittedly some ofthem were more diplomatic but nonetheless they seemed a little weary of him.
That is my angle on this. Chris Houston has dealt with the issue and I would like to re-iterate he does this for free, and in his own time. Perhaps we should all remember that. Also I'd point out he is not a fire service sympathiser as someone already claimed and if you read his posts you would see he remains very much neutral and balanced.
-
Clevelandfire,
Thanks for your explanation. Please note that while I do this for free, am constantly trying to think of a way to make some money out of you all at some stage, so no sympathy is needed. :)
I must admit to be confused as to who did the swearing, as I removed it I don't have a record of it. I did support the complaints that the tone of your (Cleavelandfire's) note was perhaps not to the normal style we have on FireNet.
Taking of my Admin hat and putting on my site users hat and natural curiosity about things, I too share the dismay that those who have claimed to be shutting down their B&B's are not telling us what it was that they were asked to do and why it was considered over the top.
I'm happy for this debate to continue, but I must warn site users that now that I've issued a "yellow card" on the subject I will encourage all site users to avoid swearing, name calling and getting personal. My method of encouragement may include editing posts, suspending or even banning users. I sincerely hope not to have to do any of those things.
-
Hello all
Its the 40 bed hotel owner again
Maybe the problem is very basic.
We all know that power corrups and ...etc etc.
FB's have been given a new power.
They like it (and will probable like it even more when courts start converting non prescriptive legislation into case law)...we (in the what shall I say..the real world) don't
I have only been on this forum a week or two and I can sense real antagonismn (even if I can't spell it)
Its such a shame. From my point of view it was all working very well before Prescott got into the act
-
My personal view is that if anything the 'power' that the Fire Service has actually been removed , as such.
Its been to long that Fire Safety was always left off the agenda .
The Fire Service had to change , and the good old days when you had a visit , and a polite reminder I will be back in 3 months ,(make sure you get it done) was far to relaxed , albeit it probably worked with most people.
I was with a client last year who had to complete some work , (which needed badly to be done) , the advice / comments from the fire officer in our view were incorrect , we challenged this in a professional way and the matter was resolved.
Therfore you as a hotel owner etc are given more choice to seek out and find a reputable qualified person to ensure that you are in compliance and with the correct information are at liberty to question any matters relating to fire safety that you may be required to address.
I think over the next few years all this fire safety issues will quieten down .
-
Its such a shame. From my point of view it was all working very well before Prescott got into the act
Couldnt agree more. But Prescott didnt really affect fire safety law- he really messed up the operational side of the job. The changes to fire safety law were on the way anyway as a result of the European directive. The UK was out of line in retaining the prescriptive fire certification regime rather than fully embracing the concept of risk assessment into the UK fire legislation
-
Hello all
Its the 40 bed hotel owner again
Maybe the problem is very basic.
We all know that power corrups and ...etc etc.
FB's have been given a new power.
They like it (and will probable like it even more when courts start converting non prescriptive legislation into case law)...we (in the what shall I say..the real world) don't
I have only been on this forum a week or two and I can sense real antagonismn (even if I can't spell it)
Its such a shame. From my point of view it was all working very well before Prescott got into the act
Where's the site adminstrator? This gent is implying that enforcing authorities are corrupt! (even though he can't spell it). I agree with Clevelandfire that Chris Houston is moderating at an inappropriate level and runs the risk of sanitising this forum to such an extent that it will become boring. Oh my god what have I said! Please don't yellow card me oh powerful one.
Chris, Joking aside, people are getting fed up and will leave this forum if you carry on intervening the way you do.
-
Chris,
You were quite right to intervene as you did. This forum is a brilliant way for each of us to exchange opinions and learn from each other. The posts that created this disagreement had deteriorated into 'small talk' with little reference to the original thread. It requires monotoring by someone otherwise it will deteriorate into nothing more 'swinging handbags'. Well done for keeping it professional
-
Lads. Give Chris a break! I was one of those who urged him to intervene because the behaviour of a few contributers was undermining the aims of the forum. He was very reluctant to do so, and I can now see why. As a newcomer and an accommodation provider, I believe this forum to be a useful vehicle to build mutual understanding in a matter which is causing much anger and resentment. Plain speaking is fine, but when this turns to insult, as it had done, those affected will inevitably stop contributing, which is a shame. Let's maintain respect for each other and keep this dialogue going, otherwise it's all a waste of everyone's time
-
You can never please all the people all the time.
If you carry on as you are Chris I shall recommend that the site owner doubles your moderating fee.
-
Where's the site adminstrator? This gent is implying that enforcing authorities are corrupt! (even though he can't spell it). I agree with Clevelandfire that Chris Houston is moderating at an inappropriate level and runs the risk of sanitising this forum to such an extent that it will become boring. Oh my god what have I said! Please don't yellow card me oh powerful one.
Chris, Joking aside, people are getting fed up and will leave this forum if you carry on intervening the way you do.
Are you serious? I think the only thing I can be accused of is not moderating enough. I deleted post that included swearing and I ASKED someone to consider appologising. I was requested to do a lot more than I did, but I resisted because I value free speach over moderation.
So your posts hints that I should take action against someone for implying the fire service is corupt (I won't, on the basis of freedom of expression again) and then you say I moderate too much?
As a gesture of good will I have refunded your membership fees for the month and docked my wages for the day.
-
It must be a thankless task moderating a forum and the theory that you can't please everyone all of the time certainly must be true.
However, I would suggest that more people will leave the forum if they consider they have been personally abused, than would stay if there was no moderation.
I particularly feel that newer members wouldn't stay very long and add potentially valuable contributions if they are personally abused on their first few postings.
Surely, we can all find a better way of supporting our own arguments other than personal abuse of those we disagree with?
It seems to me that Chris rarely moderates any abuse unless someone 'reports' it, and I personally would rather him step in even earlier to 'nip it in the bud'.
Conversely I think Chris intervenes too much when the forums are being used for humorous interchanges amongst members and makes things too businesslike and impersonal.
Does this forum allow a voting facility? Maybe all the members could vote on just what type of moderation they want on the forum?
-
Where's the site adminstrator? This gent is implying that enforcing authorities are corrupt! (even though he can't spell it)......
I thought it was the agreed rule that spelling mistakes were ignored in e-communication and that no gain in argumentative advantage was attempted by highlighting it?
If not, many current posters on this forum will lose their argument without reference to it's validity through their lack of spelling ability (me included?) :)
If spelling ability is the sure way of promoting an opinion that others consider to be correct, or to win an argument can I please request the site administrator consider adding a spelling checker to the forum :)
-
Wiz,
You are entitled to your views, but there are quite a number of assumptions on your post that are inaccurate.
To give you some idea, there are just over 33,000 posts on FireNet. Exclusing adverts, I have probably deleted about 10 to 20 posts ever, closed about 5 debates, temporarily suspended 1 member, no real members have ever been permenantly banned, only spammers. I have however emailed people privatly about 100 times and written to both parties when something controversial has happened, as the B&B camp will testify.
Any "controversial" decision I make are brought to the attention of the site owner. All reports also go to him, so you can "report" me (although I'll see it).
Most of my intervention is not prompted by reports, as I tend to spot things before someone reports them.
The software we use doesn't enable any sort of vote or poll, although I have suggested that we update the software to prevent the automated adverts we get, but either way, my style of moderating isn't going to change, so your only hope is that I get "fired". For as long as I have the job, you are going to have to live with the way things are. I can think of no other examples of anyone complaining about my decisions other than this example, where the "victim" has publicaly supported my decision.
-
Where's the site adminstrator? This gent is implying that enforcing authorities are corrupt! (even though he can't spell it)......
I thought it was the agreed rule that spelling mistakes were ignored in e-communication and that no gain in argumentative advantage was attempted by highlighting it?
If not, many current posters on this forum will lose their argument without reference to it's validity through their lack of spelling ability (me included?) :)
If spelling ability is the sure way of promoting an opinion that others consider to be correct, or to win an argument can I please request the site administrator consider adding a spelling checker to the forum :)
I shall file your recommendation in the "suggestions from Wiz on how to to my job" box that I keep in my basement. :)
-
Well Chris, My post contained only my opinions and many were prefaced by 'it seems to me'.
I have no reason to believe that you are doing a poor job or that you should change your moderating methods or that you should be 'fired' (unless we can get someone to do the job for less money :)
I personally believe the personal abuse allowed is too high and the humour allowed is too low. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me, particularly not you, but I would hope I would be allowed to voice my opinion on a forum discussing the subject.
-
You are quite entitled to your opinion and I would not discourage anyone from stating their opinion.
To address your points - us regualar users do like a bit of banter. But infrequent site users can be put off posting by feeling that there is some sort of clique and the jokes that 99% of forum users probably don't get having not been following the chain are something we have received more complaints about in the past than anyone's language. That is why I do recommend "getting back to the subject" and dislike pages of banter in the middle of a debate on Fire Safety. Site users can post banter in the "Meeting Room".
As you seem to be demonstrating yourself, people don't like moderators editing things without good reason. So I have to make a judgement when someone is "impolite" or "rude". My policy is to therefore only take action when there is an overwhelming case to do so. My most recent decision on this has not met with universal approval, but the majority do seem to support my approach.
All site users are welcome to voice their opinion on the subject and please do let me know if you think I need to be harsher, but I would speculate that most people want a "hand's off" moderator and I think that the FireNet has the highest quality of posting and debate on any site I use and I think that is a testimant to the quality of the users, the quality of the debate and the low key moderation.
For comaprison purposes why not take a look at ambulance999 forum and tell me which you prefer.
Chris,
The moderator you are stuck with. :)
-
Chris, I was amazed by your comment that the level of complaints regarding banter, is greater that those about anyone's language (surely a mistake! :) )
Obviously, you analyse the stream of statistics churned out by the forum's hi-tech monitoring systems, so it must be one of those facts many of us would have to label 'strange but true' :)
Pondering this fact and wondering how the banter could be preserved but not 'spoil' the thread for those who have not been 'following the chain' (do you mean there really are people responding to posts on Firenet without reading the earlier posts that invoked that post? :) ) I was wondering if a solution could be found.
Running the risk that my new idea will join my 'spell checker' idea that was put in the special box you keep in your basement on the assumption that any idea from me is an attempt to steal your job * (even taking into account any possible paranoia you are so far away from the truth), may I make the following suggestion to moderation rules:
'When the moderator considers a chain of posts contain so much banter that it is too far 'off subject' he/she (that's got you thinking!) will move those posts (those containing pure banter) to an 'out of control banter' section where the miscreants can continue 'bantering' with each other until they collapse into a heap of mutual giggling and become no longer able to continue. Those that can't understand or detest the banter could therefore avoid the new section and the original post thread can continue without it being 'stained' by the banter.
Surely everybody will be happy with that system?
Surely it is an idea of pure genius at a level rarely encountered in this home for the slightly bewildered?
Does no one else agree?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
* ps - The only job I want is Prof. Kurnal's.- Riding the range assessing risks with a glint in his eye and the dust of the past on his shiny new crocodile boots. Whistling happy tunes whilst gleefully firing off posts to Firenet in all directions at an average rate of 2.7 words per second, day and night. What a life! What a man! What hero to us other bantering residents!
-
For my money Chris does a good job and to look at every single threat and comment what take up a great deal of time.
Whilst i like humour i think for new members when we do jape with one another it can give the impression we are all cliquey of perhaps a closed group or know each other well and it could be daunting as a "new boy or girl"
Agree with other posters too regarding the way legislation has gone to a point. We haven't really been given any additional powers, but it has to be said we were always the friendly enforcers, now our remit has changed slightly and we being asked by government to flex some muscle. Nothing wrong with that as it is not an abuse of power all we are doing is job, and spending more on resources to be trained on more effective enforcement and dealing with the legal stuff. Some people dont like it because the old regime meant they could "get away" with certain things. The new legislation for the first time allows us to look into types of premises we weren't able to before. one thing is for sure and thats that middle ground doesnt seem to exist. People I deal with either say they just want to be told how to comply (ie prescription) others feel we are overbearing and should relax standards.
-
'When the moderator considers a chain of posts contain so much banter that it is too far 'off subject' he/she (that's got you thinking!) will move those posts (those containing pure banter) to an 'out of control banter' section where the miscreants can continue 'bantering' with each other until they collapse into a heap of mutual giggling and become no longer able to continue. Those that can't understand or detest the banter could therefore avoid the new section and the original post thread can continue without it being 'stained' by the banter.
Wiz
I know you arent my biggest fan despite my sticking up for you once against the current and incumbent Mr Houston which almost made you faint but lets not dwell on that, i actually agree that your suggestion is good. One problem I forsee is that if the banter was moved to a new section it wouldnt flow properly as there would be constant chopping and changing of the conversation maybe. So say banter from a thread on "fire alarms" would be pasted into the new section by chris, then in another thread about "emergency lighting" some more banter occurs which also then gets pasted into the new section. As a result say you wanted to respond to something i said in the fire alarm thread but then cant find my comment because other inate banter from emergency lighting thread has followed on since my last post? The mix of the fire alarm and emergency lighting threads may then look like a new thread of absolute confusion?
-
I agree with Clevelandfire that Chris Houston is moderating at an inappropriate level and runs the risk of sanitising this forum to such an extent that it will become boring. Oh my god what have I said! Please don't yellow card me oh powerful one.
Chris, Joking aside, people are getting fed up and will leave this forum if you carry on intervening the way you do.
I never said Chris' moderating was innapropriate. this is why I get my hair off at people because they dont read what ive put properly. But hey ho ill remain calm
-
'When the moderator considers a chain of posts contain so much banter that it is too far 'off subject' he/she (that's got you thinking!) will move those posts (those containing pure banter) to an 'out of control banter' section where the miscreants can continue 'bantering' with each other until they collapse into a heap of mutual giggling and become no longer able to continue. Those that can't understand or detest the banter could therefore avoid the new section and the original post thread can continue without it being 'stained' by the banter.
Wiz
I know you arent my biggest fan despite my sticking up for you once against the current and incumbent Mr Houston which almost made you faint but lets not dwell on that, i actually agree that your suggestion is good. One problem I forsee is that if the banter was moved to a new section it wouldnt flow properly as there would be constant chopping and changing of the conversation maybe. So say banter from a thread on "fire alarms" would be pasted into the new section by chris, then in another thread about "emergency lighting" some more banter occurs which also then gets pasted into the new section. As a result say you wanted to respond to something i said in the fire alarm thread but then cant find my comment because other inate banter from emergency lighting thread has followed on since my last post? The mix of the fire alarm and emergency lighting threads may then look like a new thread of absolute confusion?
Clevelandfire,
The idea is that there would be different threads within the 'out of control banter' section, so that the related banter was all put in one thread (within the section) and not all lumped together with other unrelated banter. If it was mixed up then, the banter wouldn't make sense, or be funny, as you rightly point out.
I appreciate that some of the banter is contained within the actual answers to the thread and surely these are not a big problem and can stay where they are. Surely, the problem is when there a number of posts, one after the other, that are entirely banter and it becomes diifciult to follow the original serious point of the thread? It is these that should possibly be 'relocated'.
I am disappointed that some members feel that the banter is 'cliquey' because I always thought a clique was where some people were excluded by the members of the clique. I've always found those who like the banter welcome contributions from absolutely anyone. In fact some of the banter contributions from people who don't otherwise post that much have been magnificent in their content! Everyone is welcome to become a resident in the home for the slightly bewildered and can even try to 'hit on' Matron, if they are brave enough!
I presume, and fully understand, that some people trying to follow the 'serious' part of the thread get distracted by banter that they might not understand. I say they should 'hang on in there' and when they get the gist of it, to join in. They'd be made welcome by the other residents, I feel.
I can't remember ever having a problem with the administrator where I have have needed anyone to stand up for me and I can't remember nearly fainting! But I do remember you once saying to the administrator 'I found wiz's comments very funny', to which I replied 'Well that would be a be a first!' - My comment was in jest of course, and I do hope you took it that way
I'm a fan of everyone who argues their viewpoint with a fairly reasonable amount of respect for the other person's opinions and feelings and I genuinely look forward to becoming your fan in this respect.
-
Gents,
Before you spend too much time debating the "splitting the thread" idea - please note that the software doesn't give us this option. Posts can be closed, stuck and moved, but not split. Non-starter.
-
Gents,
Before you spend too much time debating the "splitting the thread" idea - please note that the software doesn't give us this option. Posts can be closed, stuck and moved, but not split. Non-starter.
I therefore now retract my previous 'genius' remark!
-
i am disappointed that some members feel that the banter is 'cliquey' because I always thought a clique was where some people were excluded by the members of the clique. I've always found those who like the banter welcome contributions from absolutely anyone. In fact some of the banter contributions from people who don't otherwise post that much have been magnificent in their content! Everyone is welcome to become a resident in the home for the slightly bewildered and can even try to 'hit on' Matron, if they are brave enough!
I did take it in the way it was meant Wiz
The banter here is excellent and a nice part of joining the site but while there are no cliques here as we regulars know a new member it may seem as such perhaps.
I look forward to you looking forward to becoming a fan of mine of which there are several. I promise Im not all that bad when you get to know me honest, and as my mother used to say generally we dislike those who most resemble ourselves . By that of course she wasn't saying you are fat ugly and from cleveland like me but you know what I mean.
-
It is always hard to moderate a forum like this one, and on the whole I think Chris is doing a good job, I have seen in the past other forums die because the moderator just thinks why do I bother.
I do feel some of the people on here do get very aggressive and try and make attacks (in my case, about my qualifications and my right to make a comment) if someone has a different opinion to them.
I have only been on here a few weeks and nearly called it a day after the "how to tell what detector thread" to such an extent that I registered a different account on here so I was not using my real name, and deleted my original text. I then thought I why should people get away with bullying, I think a lot of the people on here are very knowledgeable and give great reasoning to there point of veiw, and I for one am happy to comunicte and debate with the likes of Kurnal, Graeme, Davo, Benzerari to name a few.
If the few bully's listened more to what is actually being said rather than what they think is being said, they possibly would not get so agressive. Some of the guys on here have massive amounts of knowledge to share, you can not buy this sort of experience.
I just hope the good guys arnt pushed off this site. I for one come on this site to improve my knowledge and if I can help others.
-
.... to such an extent that I registered a different account on here so I was not using my real name......
Thomas, I think this happens more times than you might first imagine
....and I for one am happy to comunicte and debate with the likes of Kurnal, Graeme, Davo, Benzerari to name a few.
Have you not considered the possibility that these might all be one and the same person? ;)
-
..... you can not buy this sort of experience.
Not so. Get in touch and I'll send you a schedule of rates ;)
-
.... to such an extent that I registered a different account on here so I was not using my real name......
Thomas, I think this happens more times than you might first imagine
....and I for one am happy to comunicte and debate with the likes of Kurnal, Graeme, Davo, Benzerari to name a few.
Have you not considered the possibility that these might all be one and the same person? ;)
no way Mr Wiz.. deffo not Benzerari too. or is he my dark side???
just kidding Benz
-
.... to such an extent that I registered a different account on here so I was not using my real name......
Thomas, I think this happens more times than you might first imagine
....and I for one am happy to comunicte and debate with the likes of Kurnal, Graeme, Davo, Benzerari to name a few.
Have you not considered the possibility that these might all be one and the same person? ;)
LOL!!!!Can hear Graeme from here!!
-
Oh so hang on then is there an element of false flag operations going on here?. Are Wiz and Chris Houston the same person really? Does Chris log on as Wiz to critisize himself in an attempt to gather compliments and kind words from other members about how good he is as a moderator? I think PhilB and Todd are the same person and Midland Retty and CivvyFSO are the same person and I think I am the same person as Kurnal
-
Ha ha. Nope. And duplicate identities are not allowed. I'd let it pass when people have had a legitimate reason to post something that their employers would not permit them to, but 2 people posing as 1 in a debate is dodgy. I can tell everyone's IP and email address by the way ;)
-
I think I am the same person as Kurnal
We both share damp trousers from time to time- me through fanatical comparisons of guidance documents and you from persistently misjudging the wind direction but thats as far as it goes.
-
I think I am the same person as Kurnal
We both share damp trousers from time to time- me through fanatical comparisons of guidance documents and you from persistently misjudging the wind direction but thats as far as it goes.
Why are you speaking to yourself ?
-
Ha ha. Nope. And duplicate identities are not allowed. I'd let it pass when people have had a legitimate reason to post something that their employers would not permit them to, but 2 people posing as 1 in a debate is dodgy. I can tell everyone's IP and email address by the way ;)
Are you seriously trying to tell us Kurnal and Superman are not one and the same person? :)
I have heard that some people have access to many PC's, email addresses and disguises. Reassuringly, Chris indicates that this wouldn't work on Firenet!
p.s Chris, I understand other members consider that you criticise me. I had thought we were sharing different opinions together. Now I know the truth I'll read your posts more carefully in the future.
-
I think I am the same person as Kurnal
We both share damp trousers from time to time- me through fanatical comparisons of guidance documents and you from persistently misjudging the wind direction but thats as far as it goes.
Why are you speaking to yourself ?
Why are you asking yourself questions? Surely you know the answer?
-
Oh so hang on then is there an element of false flag operations going on here?. Are Wiz and Chris Houston the same person really? Does Chris log on as Wiz to critisize himself in an attempt to gather compliments and kind words from other members about how good he is as a moderator? I think PhilB and Todd are the same person and Midland Retty and CivvyFSO are the same person and I think I am the same person as Kurnal
How very dare you!
Its a well known fact that me and Brad Pitt are one and the same person, other than that no doppel gangers here chummy!!
-
Just to add my bit, I am very happy with te way Chris moderates ths forum, and the fact that he is getting brickbats from both sides indicates he is doing a reasonable job.
I enjoy the banter and it does wander off into some Pythonesk areas at times, but I firmly believe that life is far too important to be taken seriously.
As far as dopplergangers are concerned I have just one question: now my schizophenria is cured, where am I when I need me?
-
You're behind you...
-
Is that the problem with paranoid schizophrenia?
"You're behind you!"
Have we digressed enough yet?
-
OK Cleaveland has explained himself, you've all told me how wonderful a Mod I am. I don't see my "Fire Safety" being discussed, please move along now, nothing to see here.