Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Self reporting. Self banning. And now self abusing.........owner operation at it's best!!!
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
BakesFan wrote:No baiting, jb.... your s***'s just boring. Everyone knows who you are ...don't insult the forum by pretending otherwise...Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bunk_Moreland has only been on the forum for a short time. Infer that Bunk_Moreland is somebody else than Bunk_Moreland or refer to BunK_Moreland as anybody else and BM will report you.Dave McNamara wrote:Good point. I stand corrected. Technically, you never really went away.Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bunk_Moreland is unsure what you mean. Bunk_Moreland never went anywhere to return from.
You are beginning to bait and that is against forum rules. Desist or you will face the wrath of the moderators for breaking forum rules
..report me... I'll take my whack..... I have no idea what you're trying to prove... but it's pretty f*****' childish and annoying.
..f*** it... I'll ban myself for two weeks... no further comment from me until at the 6/9/14.
Bunk_Moreland doesn't give a flying f*** what you think BakesFan. Bunk_Moreland not interested in your huge sense of entitlement on this forum. Bunk_Moreland believes it is none of your concern or none of your damned business why BunK_Moreland has requested from the mods what BM requested.
All that matters to you and the rest of the self entitled pack of wild dogs bully boys on this forum is to come to heel and abide by the mods decision.
If you cant do that, don't whinge (going on past self entitled rants from you and your cronies will whine like an EH diff) when you are reported and possibly warned according to the mods decision.
If you cant stick to the rules, you have the right to not post here. I encourage you to exercise that right.
And as per your wishes, BM has warned you for baiting expressly against forum rules.
Regards
Bunk_Moreland
P.S. Just read the last sentence of your little hissy fit. Why not permanently ban yourself/ You bring nothing to the forum but your own sense of entitlement.
Bunk_Moreland believes this thread and the last one just shows the discourteous nature of most posters on this site, where a request was made and agreed with by the moderator, but because some on here think they are above the rules and the decisions, continue to be rude, arrogant and totally lacking in common civility or basic manners.
It shows why Simon had to clean up this and the football forum. it also shows the glass jaw most of the more arrogant and rude posters who think they are better than and deserve more than other posters.
Well it is a new era, bully boys, try some basic manners and adhering to the forum rules. Also attempt some basic humility. You might surprise yourselves.
You are garbage - Enough said
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
So now we can add 'self entitlement' to the list?
Can I ask what that actually means in the grand scheme of things SS based? What would someone actually be thinking they are entitled to?
Can I ask what that actually means in the grand scheme of things SS based? What would someone actually be thinking they are entitled to?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
I do hope that self-abuse is not coming to this forum.SENsaintsational wrote:Self reporting. Self banning. And now self abusing.........owner operation at it's best!!!
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
SENsaintsational wrote:So now we can add 'self entitlement' to the list?
Can I ask what that actually means in the grand scheme of things SS based? What would someone actually be thinking they are entitled to?
They think they are entitled to disregard the rules and mod decisions and then whinge and whine and continue to bait, because they think they are above the rest of the forum.
When they break the ruels and get reported they whinge and whine some more because they have been reported.
is it too hard Sensational, to actually show some common courtesy and basic manners and abide by moderation decisions?
Surely any reasonable person can see that an adult wouldn't find it too hard to treat the mods decision and hence the poster involved with a modicum of respect.
Not asking too much is it?
Unfortunately there are a self chosen few who think they are better than everybody else on this website and believe the rules don't apply to them. They only thing BM can concluded from this sort of infantile behavior is that they believe the have the entitlement to be in a different category to anyone else.
St.Byron has explained on numerous occasions why the decision was made, the conversation was between Bunk_Moreland and St.Byron by PM. St.Byron actually asked Bunk_Moreland to explain to the forum the reasons, however BM believes that it is not important to know the reasons, only that the reason have been accepted as valid by the moderators and therefore the moderators asked for the decision to be respected.
Now it has come to abuse and insults by Bakesfan because he cant get his own way. A Churlish and juvenile tantrum full of abuse and invective.
This is why Bunk_Moreland used self entitled, arrogant, rude, and lacking in basic manners and courtesy (to paraphrase), the attitude and behavior of some posters who wont accept that there is a new dawn at SS, one that you had a substantial hand in as did St.Byron, Simon, and many others.
BM believes the forum has been changed for the better. BM believes in following the rules and abiding to the mods decisions. BM believes in common courtesy in that regard.
Other self entitled posters, by their continued posting and baiting of BM, on the particular decision shows they don't believe in those basic standards.
You are garbage - Enough said
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
GrumpyOne wrote:I do hope that self-abuse is not coming to this forum.SENsaintsational wrote:Self reporting. Self banning. And now self abusing.........owner operation at it's best!!!
It has been here for a substantial time GO
You are garbage - Enough said
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
All of that precisely why this Admin forum should be only viewable when logged in.
But I digress.
Bunk, reading between the lines, I can understand reasoning for changing one's user name and if those reasons are due to something in the 'real life', then I totally agree that all should abide by the decision and wishes. Although, I think you would find, if that was the case, that most mature, long standing SS posters would understand and there would not be a word about it. If that were the case.
But that is your story to tell. Up to you.
But I digress.
Bunk, reading between the lines, I can understand reasoning for changing one's user name and if those reasons are due to something in the 'real life', then I totally agree that all should abide by the decision and wishes. Although, I think you would find, if that was the case, that most mature, long standing SS posters would understand and there would not be a word about it. If that were the case.
But that is your story to tell. Up to you.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Age please. Seriously talking in the third person and calling people bullies. What is this. Kindergarden. Dobbing to top it off because someone called someone else different letters of the alphabet. If I didnt know better I reckon it is nearly reverse baiting. BM why this third person crap and this bully crap. I donbt either of them are the real you. And yes i know your only a name on the internet. If you let people call the other letters in the first place all this crap would have finished about 3 months ago.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
here you goplugger66 wrote:Age please.
Although Bunk_Moreland suspects Plugger66 of being a tabloid person, nothing as highbrow as the Age. so I am surprised P66 was asking for it.
So really P66, your biggest beef is a poster posting in third person???????
Really????
Bunk_Moreland will continue to post as BM pleases, and bullying from P66 wont stop that.
BM suggest P66 get some perspective and not concentrate on the minutia of a an issue and attempt to focus on the broader picture.
Bunk_Moreland believes that P66 has issues if third person posting drives P66 to such extreme and bizarre objections.
You are garbage - Enough said
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Crux of the matter. Bunk_Moreland requested some basic manners and courtesy from posters, the reasons and decisions were accepted as valid by the moderator, but you and others will not except the decision.plugger66 wrote: If you let people call the other letters in the first place all this crap would have finished about 3 months ago.
Continued harassment of BunK_Moreland on this issue is construed by Bunk_Moreland as bullying.
It is not Bunk_Moreland's affair if you and others cant cope with basic good manners and courtesy, that is an issue for yourself and your character. It is Bunk_Morelands business and affair that after repeated appeals to stop baiting BM, you and others reject that appeal and continue to hound BM on the subject.
As for reverse baiting, report BM's post that you consider reverse baiting. Allow the moderators to make their decision. Unlike many on here BM will not claim to be so arrogant that BM cannot accept the mods decision on the report.
Unlike many on this forum Bunk_Moreland, respects both the forum rules, and the moderating process. Bunk_Moreland will abide by the decision and will not attempt to harass or bully any poster into doing anything they do not want to occur.
BM suggests you and your other malcontents on this forum attempt to do the same. You know like an adult or a grown up (a term you so much love to bandy about).
Last edited by Bunk_Moreland on Mon 25 Aug 2014 5:33pm, edited 1 time in total.
You are garbage - Enough said
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Bunk_Moreland wrote:here you goplugger66 wrote:Age please.
Although Bunk_Moreland suspects Plugger66 of being a tabloid person, nothing as highbrow as the Age. so I am surprised P66 was asking for it.
So really P66, your biggest beef is a poster posting in third person???????
Really????
Bunk_Moreland will continue to post as BM pleases, and bullying from P66 wont stop that.
BM suggest P66 get some perspective and not concentrate on the minutia of a an issue and attempt to focus on the broader picture.
Bunk_Moreland believes that P66 has issues if third person posting drives P66 to such extreme and bizarre objections.
Doesnt drive me to extreme and bizarre objections. My post was considered and made more sense than this third person stuf and even more sense than claim of bullying. Childish IMO bof course my opinion may not be others. Wouldnt mond betting it is though. You can post in the third person all you like. Its quite funny but not in the normal way I call funny. Its more your funny weird worrying issues funny. Not sure there is to much of a broader picture in an admin area of a little fan forum. I dont think we are solving to many world issues.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Bunk_Moreland finds it amusing that you may think that your opinion, or anybody elses opinion of BM's posting is of any importance to BM.plugger66 wrote:Bunk_Moreland wrote:here you goplugger66 wrote:Age please.
Although Bunk_Moreland suspects Plugger66 of being a tabloid person, nothing as highbrow as the Age. so I am surprised P66 was asking for it.
So really P66, your biggest beef is a poster posting in third person???????
Really????
Bunk_Moreland will continue to post as BM pleases, and bullying from P66 wont stop that.
BM suggest P66 get some perspective and not concentrate on the minutia of a an issue and attempt to focus on the broader picture.
Bunk_Moreland believes that P66 has issues if third person posting drives P66 to such extreme and bizarre objections.
Doesnt drive me to extreme and bizarre objections. My post was considered and made more sense than this third person stuf and even more sense than claim of bullying. Childish IMO bof course my opinion may not be others. Wouldnt mond betting it is though. You can post in the third person all you like. Its quite funny but not in the normal way I call funny. Its more your funny weird worrying issues funny. Not sure there is to much of a broader picture in an admin area of a little fan forum. I dont think we are solving to many world issues.
The only thing of importance to BM is that you and your cronies come to heel and abide by the decisions of the moderators, which for some inconceivable reason has upset you and many other no end.
Is this the first time you have ever had to provide basic manners and courtesy?
Stange
You are garbage - Enough said
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Bunk_Moreland wrote:Bunk_Moreland finds it amusing that you may think that your opinion, or anybody elses opinion of BM's posting is of any importance to BM.plugger66 wrote:Bunk_Moreland wrote:here you goplugger66 wrote:Age please.
Although Bunk_Moreland suspects Plugger66 of being a tabloid person, nothing as highbrow as the Age. so I am surprised P66 was asking for it.
So really P66, your biggest beef is a poster posting in third person???????
Really????
Bunk_Moreland will continue to post as BM pleases, and bullying from P66 wont stop that.
BM suggest P66 get some perspective and not concentrate on the minutia of a an issue and attempt to focus on the broader picture.
Bunk_Moreland believes that P66 has issues if third person posting drives P66 to such extreme and bizarre objections.
Doesnt drive me to extreme and bizarre objections. My post was considered and made more sense than this third person stuf and even more sense than claim of bullying. Childish IMO bof course my opinion may not be others. Wouldnt mond betting it is though. You can post in the third person all you like. Its quite funny but not in the normal way I call funny. Its more your funny weird worrying issues funny. Not sure there is to much of a broader picture in an admin area of a little fan forum. I dont think we are solving to many world issues.
The only thing of importance to BM is that you and your cronies come to heel and abide by the decisions of the moderators, which for some inconceivable reason has upset you and many other no end.
Is this the first time you have ever had to provide basic manners and courtesy?
Stange
Strange response BM. Have i called you any other name since you told me not too? I dont think so. I must have missed out in manners with my family because i didnt realise it wasnt basic manners and courtesy to question things or say it sounds childish to speak in the third person. And i dont think my opinion matters to you at all. I dont think I have said that. Anyway can you explain manners because Im confused why it seems you dont think I have any? Plugger66 looks forward to BM response.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
- BackFromTheChinaCafe
- Club Player
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sun 18 May 2014 2:04am
- Location: The window seat.
Re: Mystery de-bunked
This remind me of Charlie Chan mystery. "Case of the Third Person Posting".plugger66 wrote: BM why this third person crap.
Very baffling. Then, clue earlier in thread. Ancient writings of prophet Simon now illuminate for all.
Jaffaboy is first person posting.
Nextmess Stringer is second person posting.
So, Bunk Moreland must be third person posting.
Case of................. man who ride tiger, cannot dismount?
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Mystery de-bunked
While this is a worthy attempt at humour, although misguided and lightweight, there are some factual errors to address and some clarification requiredBackFromTheChinaCafe wrote:This remind me of Charlie Chan mystery. "Case of the Third Person Posting".plugger66 wrote: BM why this third person crap.
Very baffling. Then, clue earlier in thread. Ancient writings of prophet Simon now illuminate for all.
Jaffaboy is first person posting.
Nextmess Stringer is second person posting.
So, Bunk Moreland must be third person posting.
Case of................. man who ride tiger, cannot dismount?
There was, to BM's knowledge never a Jaffaboy nic. There was a nic posting on Saintsational known as Joffaboy that has been disabled on request by the moderators.
Nextmess Stringer was actually NeXtmess_Stringer. The moderators asked BM to change the name for a couple of reasons, mainly because they thought it was too close to the Stinger nic which was fair enough, even though BM honestly didn't think of it as BM was actually being cheeky on the Nexus nic. Stringer was from Stringer Bell from the Wire series, that is why Bunk_Moreland was chosen as a replacement (Bunk Moreland was a character in the Wire series).
on another note Bunk_Moreland has been contacted by the moderators in relation to what constitutes baiting of Bunk_Moreland and what doesn't. As ALWAYS and unlike many on here BM will abide by the mods decision on this matter.
As it was a PM, BM is not currently at liberty to disclose the nature of the PM, however BM has asked the moderator if BM can publish his decision (courtesy and basic manners deem BM doesn't publish until BM receives the permission).
BM will also publish BM's response.
As always BM will abide by mods decisions and will not whinge and whine and not believe BM is better than other posters and their wishes and dispute their rulings and decisions.
Others should take a leaf out of BM's book and follow his example. The forum will be a much better place if some maverick posters come to heel and understand that this is what occurs when forum rules are adhered to (which Bunk_Moreland fully and wholeheartedely supports by the way).
Thank you for your time and forbearance in this matter.
You are garbage - Enough said
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
If Charlie Chan is getting to the bottom of mysteries, could he advise where a bloke would be going if walking through the airport turnstiles sideways?
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
I'm pretty disappointed that the alternate nickname chosen via The Wire wasn't Proposition Joff to be honest......
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
plugger66 wrote: Anyway can you explain manners because Im confused why it seems you dont think I have any? Plugger66 looks forward to BM response.
Apologies Plugger66, but it is not BM's role or responsibility to teach you or anybody basic manners.
it is your responsibility to learn them and understand them as society standards currently expect.
You are garbage - Enough said
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed 14 May 2014 7:45pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
SENsaintsational wrote:I'm pretty disappointed that the alternate nickname chosen via The Wire wasn't Proposition Joff to be honest......
There was no Proposition Joff in the Wire. There was a Proposition Joe if BM recalls.
There was a fleeting moment when Avon_Barksdale was considered.
Almost swapped series to GoT and went for King_Joffery though.
You are garbage - Enough said
- HitTheBoundary
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2058
- Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2009 9:00am
- Location: Walkabout
- Has thanked: 174 times
- Been thanked: 68 times
- Contact:
Re: Mystery de-bunked
Why are you third person in this forum but first person on the fan forum? Just wondering.Bunk_Moreland wrote:BM will also publish BM's response.
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
And whatever happened to the second person?? Never gets a mention.....
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
- GrumpyOne
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8163
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2010 9:25am
- Location: Kicked out of the Coffee Shop, Settlement Pub, Cranbourne
Re: Banning of Principle of Q'uo
I believe it was not Phuket, even if he shouted that destination at the time.SENsaintsational wrote:If Charlie Chan is getting to the bottom of mysteries, could he advise where a bloke would be going if walking through the airport turnstiles sideways?
Australia...... Live it like we stole it....... Because we did.