Why was the thread closed?

[Mr Tree]

twice in the last few minutes, Banana has closed a thread on a note that suits him, rather than for any reason given in the Code of Conduct.

i think this board is VERY well run, but this smacks of a power trip

i would appreciate a public explanation, but will not hold my breath

why was the cricket thread closed? a simple reason, please. i was in the middle of an interesting exchange of views with my friend WEB over a current "hot potato"

why was the Mr Tree signature thread closed? i see no flouting of the CoC, rather TWO moderators who have deigned to use their power to attempt to make me look stoopid. i can do that myself, thank you

 

[Banana]

twice in the last few minutes, Banana has closed a thread on a note that suits him, rather than for any reason given in the Code of Conduct.

I can feel another "I was wrong" coming

 

[Mr Tree]

drum roll..................
why then? i won't be able to do it until i receive the explanation, will i?

 

[TW3Bee]

 

[Banana]

You can post in the relevant thread (this one) that your assumptions were wrong. I don't mind

 

[Mr Tree]

me too. i'm just after some simple questions being answered. it's getting rather frustrating. i would very much like to leave it alone, but i can imagine that if you were in a situation where the moderators of the board were abusing their power at your expense, you too would want to know why.

i mean, if you think it's appropriate for them to close threads just because they can't answer your questions, and then to further avoid more simple questions here, then fair play :shrug: what's the consensus? maybe we should never disagree, all just be quiet and let Banana do as he wishes? is that the solution you're after?

 

[Mr Tree]

You can post in the relevant thread (this one) that your assumptions were wrong. I don't mind

don't understand. please explain.

 

[Banana]

Still no "I was wrong" despite chasing down 4 GPGers with his signature for exactly the same reason

 

[Banana]

don't understand. please explain.

English is your first language innit?

 

[Mr Tree]

yes thanks. what assumptions?

and what have i been wrong about?

 

[Banana]

See posts #1 and #2

I am beginning to think the Czech beer is playing its part here.

 

[Mr Tree]

this is one element of arguing with you that is particularly frustrating. i HAVE read post #1 and post #2. i replied to them in post #3. do we really have to repeat this stuff over and over?

i asked a simple question. why was the thread closed? presumably, these wrong assumptions of mine are that the CoC was not contravened. yet, again, your style of argument is to SAY i'm wrong, and yet do nothing to actually SHOW where or how i'm wrong.

it is a weak style of argument, to say the least

 

[The H]

ironically, this thread is still open.... :scratch:

 

[Lokster]

ironically, this thread is still open.... :scratch:

And it doesn't make any sense. :shrug:

 

[GP200]

......................time to close it...................

 

[TW3Bee]

Please.

 

[peza]

im starting to get interested now.....why was the tread closed?

 

[Mr Tree]

And it doesn't make any sense. :shrug:

tell me about it
i'm trying, honestly, i'm trying. i apologise to all of you that i've bored.

 

[NorthamptonBee]

i apologise to all of you that i've bored.

Thanks.

 

[Mr Tree]

i don't mean a blanket apology, i just mean in regard to this saga!
and it is a policy of mine never to apologise to you for anything :mad1:

 

[8corner]

No need to apologise Mr Tree. No one HAS to read the thread and I have to say I'm intrigued.

 

[TW3Bee]

im starting to get interested now.....why was the tread closed?

It wasn't, but the thread was.

 

[Mr Tree]

yeah TW3, you tell 'im!! :mad2:

your resurrection of the thread has reminded me that post #1 (and subsequent post #12) were never answered

 

[fencer/bee]

Banana can do what he wants mr TREE, consider yourself owned

 

[Mr Tree]

lol true indeed. so remember that, if ever you fancy disagreeing with him!

 

[Banana]

I will answer one question per day, which one would you like answered? )

 

[Mr Tree]

we could do them in order, perhaps?

why was the cricket thread closed? a simple reason, please. i was in the middle of an interesting exchange of views with my friend WEB over a current "hot potato"

 

[Banana]

we could do them in order, perhaps?

Yes, perhaps we could. That's you ration used for today though!

To help you help yourself you might like to be specific about the order you wish to use, or to be clearer why not just reply with the question you'd like answered tomorrow.

 

[Mr Tree]

bravo, clap clap lol another "politician's" reply - fell for that hook line n sinker didn't you...

the questions were posted 2 days ago, so by this one-a-day rule you'd have answered them by now, if you could

i know you have no intention of answering the questions. similarly, as per the last PM of our exchange, "i would appreciate a sensible reply that is not laced with any cheap personal digs".

of course, i never received a reply, as "sensible" and "no personal digs" is a little beyond your posting capablities, as you're only capable of posting in a smug, patronising and obnoxious manner. you make yourself look stupider than i ever could

i shall now do like Pakistan, refuse to take to the field of play. you can claim it as a forfeit, but in the future those in charge will look back on it and declare it a draw

but, it's with the future proviso that:
you feel free to look out for every time that i'm wrong and don't admit it
and i'll look out for every time you shout down someone's opinion, telling them they're wrong without using any sort of evidence to back up your opinion

i'm pretty sure i'll find far more examples than you do

 

[Banana]

you feel free to look out for every time that i'm wrong and don't admit it
and i'll look out for every time you shout down someone's opinion, telling them they're wrong without using any sort of evidence to back up your opinion

i'm pretty sure i'll find far more examples than you do

twice in the last few minutes, Banana has closed a thread on a note that suits him,

one-nil

As you are now quoting PMs at each other I shall remind you that you claimed in your PM that you were only wrong in the cricket thread on "a minor point". That, therefore, is not an unqualified admission that you were wrong: 2-0

i'm pretty sure i'll find far more examples than you do

Not so far, so another case of Mr Tree being wrong: 3-0

 

[brentfordbeehive]

O dear.

I think its a bit naff using point schemes and rules like 'one-question-a-day' in an argument/debate.

I'm not actually on one side or another - I havent really followed this debate. However, when there is one person activally trying to develop the debate, and the other actively trying to prevent the debate carrying on (by introducing rules etc), one has to wonder who is in the wrong...?

 

[Banana]

O dear.

I think its a bit naff using point schemes and rules like 'one-question-a-day' in an argument/debate.

I'm not actually on one side or another - I havent really followed this debate. However, when there is one person activally trying to develop the debate, and the other actively trying to prevent the debate carrying on (by introducing rules etc), one has to wonder who is in the wrong...?

The person that posts this: "i shall now do like Pakistan, refuse to take to the field of play."



You forget that I have absolutely no interest in debating this point. None whatsoever.

 

[Mr Tree]

No need to apologise Mr Tree. No one HAS to read the thread and I have to say I'm intrigued.

O dear.

I think its a bit naff using point schemes and rules like 'one-question-a-day' in an argument/debate.

I'm not actually on one side or another - I havent really followed this debate. However, when there is one person activally trying to develop the debate, and the other actively trying to prevent the debate carrying on (by introducing rules etc), one has to wonder who is in the wrong...?

thanks guys - it's nice to know that i'm not actually going crazy in what has been a quite bizarre exchange

anyone can read this thread, see that i've tried again and again and failed to get any sensible response. so there's no point continuing now.

 

[Mr Tree]

i asked a simple question. why was the thread closed? presumably, these wrong assumptions of mine are that the CoC was not contravened. yet, again, your style of argument is to SAY i'm wrong, and yet do nothing to actually SHOW where or how i'm wrong.

it is a weak style of argument, to say the least

this is my first nomination btw.

but this a long-term project, so any short-term advantage you're claiming, however bizarrely, will not last long i feel...

who knows. like i say, you keep an eye out for my posts, i'll keep an eye out for yours :suspect:

 

[Banana]

i shall now do like Pakistan, refuse to take to the field of play."

5-0

 

[peza]

as in monty python...is this a 5 minute aurgument or 10 minute one?

 

[Les Beeavinu]

as in monty python...is this a 5 minute aurgument or 10 minute one?

This isn't an argument, it's contradiction.

 

[macsalisbee]

no it isnt

 

[peza]

yes it is

 

[macsalisbee]

I could have been arguing in my spare time

 

[brentfordbeehive]

You forget that I have absolutely no interest in debating this point. None whatsoever.

I don't think anyone is ever interested in debating a point when they are in the wrong.

 

[Mr Tree]

uh-oh. can open, worms everywhere!

i advise you brentfordbeehive - you can see the evidence in this thread! it's not worth getting into this discussion

 

[Mr Tree]

i shall now do like Pakistan, refuse to take to the field of play."

5-0

turns out i was wrong. the official line is that the game was abandoned because the Pakistan team "delayed playing on after being accused of ball-tampering."

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7485935.stm
Khan also told BBC Radio 5 Live he resented claims that his side refused to come out and play

i can't believe he's gonna resent me, after all i've done to try and stick up for his team

that's the last team i try and make a clever analogy. (it might be worth pointing out that that sentence will almost certainly, one day, need to have an "i was wrong" attached to it )

 

[Banana]

I don't think anyone is ever interested in debating a point when they are in the wrong.

There is no point is debating with someone that cannot admit they are wrong occasionally.

 

[brentfordbeehive]

There is no point is debating with someone that cannot admit they are wrong occasionally.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately ironic...

 

[Banana]

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

[Mr Tree]

indeed. so try "seeing" post #43, and re-thinking post #44 lol

 

[Mr Tree]

funny how he disappears when faced with undeniable examples of his being wrong lol

anyway, silly me :homer: been missing open goals!

one-nil

you haven't explained in any way HOW i'm wrong here, just said that i'm wrong

and post #153 here https://griffinpark.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64103&page=6 , :banana: has just posted "4-0" with no reference to how or why i've been wrong.

 

[peza]

can we just sort this out in the usual grown up way by everybody forming a circle around banana and mr tree and chanting 'fight fight fight'?

 

[Mr Tree]

we've got a slight distance hindrance. though i am in the UK next week!