Declan Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Some knob end on here claimed he had found out who I was, and I can only assume that is through the moderators/owners. Or he could be lying. Or he could have worked out who you are from your posts. Personally, I've always worked on the basis that anyone sad enough to trawl through my posts could work out who I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What's a 'disposable' email address, Ans? He means email addresses like 'walter.white@manx.net' although he's not really Walter White so that makes it a disposable email address. It's a bit like my 'hothunkylovemachine@manx.net' which doesn't actually get any email at all for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's not what I mean at all. Something like trashmail.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terminal Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 We have had a spate of posters unmasking and naming. 3 in 24 hours. Must be silly season. DONT. Not even a forname. If you do the post will be removed and you will be warned. If you repeat there is power to suspend posting rights or bann OK John. Doh! I mean Henry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Addie Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 We have had a spate of posters unmasking and naming. 3 in 24 hours. Must be silly season. DONT. Not even a forname. If you do the post will be removed and you will be warned. If you repeat there is power to suspend posting rights or bann In light of this contribution by Gladys, is one to assume that Rule 1 of the Ts and Cs doesn't apply to deceased users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Gladys doesn't name the person, and only one person has given a hint via their initials which unless you deliberately wished to search out the information leaves you none the wiser. Given that we are a lightly moderated forum relying on the reporting button to bring issues to be officially considered I don't think the person who added the initials has committed a terrible crime. It is a tricky one - a reasonably well known contributor to our Forum has died - without knowing anything about their life beyond the Forums it is worth having a thread commemorating them. If they are also such a prominent person that their passing gains media attention, or they are widely known irl by forum members, then it is perfectly reasonable for a thread to be created concerning their lives beyond the forums. I'm not surprised these two separate ideas might get mixed up. You'd hope all involved would deal with the issues sensitively and respectfully aware that family and loved ones have suffered a loss, but sadly not. My solution - delete the current thread and create two new ones, one for the forum member and one for a member of the Island's community who has made a contribution to its vibrancy and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Gladys doesn't name the person, and only one person has given a hint via their initials which unless you deliberately wished to search out the information leaves you none the wiser. That may be so but both this post and this post confirm that the hitherto unknown identity has been made. It's an ugly development wholly at odds with JW's instruction here. My solution - delete the current thread and create two new ones, one for the forum member and one for a member of the Island's community who has made a contribution to its vibrancy and life. It's too late for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Chinahand, you are giving a belligerent fool intent on causing controversy too much respect. His point is trivial, muddleheaded and wrong. It's disrupted the perfectly reasonable thread by repeatedly making a tiny bureaucratic point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 MTP - the second post you have linked to in no way identifies the poster other than them being male and married and living near another anonymous poster. Calling this and Dilligaf's posting of initials an ugly development is hyperbole. It isn't that surprising at all that when someone who is prominent in real life and on the forums dies people mix up these two things when commemorating their lives. People were being respectful and sad that someone had died. Turning this into some issue about "ugly developments" is an example of nit-picking and disrespect which has created and contributed to postings totally inappropriate to a RIP Thread. Have some respect and consider what is an appropriate thread to raise your issues. The proper route is via the report function, rather than you rushing in yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Chinahand, you are giving a belligerent fool intent on causing controversy too much respect. His point is trivial, muddleheaded and wrong. It's disrupted the perfectly reasonable thread by repeatedly making a tiny bureaucratic point. Oh don't be so ridiculous. It's a perfectly valid point that as soon as I had made it could have been dealt with quietly and calmly with a bit of subtle editing. Such silly drama was totally unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 The proper route is via the report function, rather than you rushing in yourself. I wouldn't use the report function on Manx Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Chinahand, you are giving a belligerent fool intent on causing controversy too much respect. His point is trivial, muddleheaded and wrong. It's disrupted the perfectly reasonable thread by repeatedly making a tiny bureaucratic point. Oh don't be so ridiculous. It's a perfectly valid point that as soon as I had made it could have been dealt with quietly and calmly with a bit of subtle editing. Such silly drama was totally unnecessary. The drama was of your making. You made a fatuous point that didn't need making. People foolishly responded but the lion's share of the blame is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It's the spirit of the no naming T&C surely - to make sure that we can post on here anonymously if we wish to? The post in question I don't think breaks the spirit. I do agree completely with Declan though that this discussion is just trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I couldn't agree more Rhumsaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.