A New Place

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am in receipt of the same info as you lot.

I do NOT need a lecture in morals from Shadow Leader,her stories of drunken depravity are legion,if she is to be believed.

Nor am i suggesting that swirly be invited back to this board.

I ammerely suggesting that a trial by message board serves no ones interest,and those that are taking part in it are sad people.

I don't mind being in a minority of one.

But then again,i don't like killing animals for fun either.
 
And yet you uphold capital punishment for rapists and child molesters?

Derek, you really are a card! :lol:
 
I have no wish to defend Swirly in the least and if the moderators of this forum don't want him back that is up to them. I just cannot get into the psyche of loading everything that goes wrong with anything on his back and abandoning him to the Talkinghorse wilderness.

He had a lot more to say about horse racing than many on here. This goes a long way to including him on a horse racing forum in my book.

Many of us have not been upset by him at all and perhaps those that are only have themselves to blame for so being.

Maybe Swirly isn't a nice person... so what?
 
Swirly Chaser always struck me as someone who was obsessed by ratings and who generally loved to debate them ad nauseam with other members of the village bowling club on here...

Why on earth did you get rid of him??? :rolleyes:
 
One thing is for sure, Phil Waters (if he is still looking in, which I am sure he will be) will relish all this attention!
 
I think it a little unfair to block him from your site Jamie on someone elses say so. I have no idea what he's said on here, but thats here not there.
If Swirly had been barred from a pub for saying somthing, does it follow that he shouldnt be able to get a pint elsewhere in town?Maybe kept an eye on, but not barred.

I know a few are barred from other places, yet are on here. I cant get into GG.com (not that I want to)for ripping into some pratt when I was pithed, his name was First5 oddley enough :D I'm sure it wasnt Swirly, as this guy knew ziltch about horses, and Swirly would have put up a better argument.
 
Originally posted by CPGagie@Sep 30 2004, 08:14 PM
If Swirly had been barred from a pub for saying somthing, does it follow that he shouldnt be able to get a pint elsewhere in town?Maybe kept an eye on, but not barred.
Click to expand...
Where I live, If you're banned from one pub you're banned from the lot. :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure thats for worse things than saying, or indeed typing somthing offensive. It also needs the police to be involved to execute the zero tolerance thing, if I remember correctly when running pubs. I'm sure most people that are barred from a pub the police havent been involved, and are then free to go where they like. It's only for extreme violence or drug dealings.
Like I said, I dont know what went on, but sticks and stones and all that.

To be honest I couldnt care less if he's barrred from here or not, I just think it's a little unfair to be tared and feathered aswell as being deleted.
 
Can we stop this please - as I understand it the decision has been made
 
As this forum is host to many good living individuals, I would ask that this posting remains viewable so as to, at the very least, offer some sort of leverage on the matter.

First of all, the "crime" that was committed was actually not committed at all. If an illegal PM was sent to a member and this member reported the PM to a moderator or the administrator, why was the offending PM not saved and used as evidence? The reason is simply because there was no such PM ever sent.

Some of the more eagle-eyed members may remember that the alleged content of this alleged PM was actually used in a posting viewable by all in a jest aimed at Gearoid. It is very obvious that the person who claimed they had received such a PM was simply telling lies, hence why that person could not produce any evidence to support their allegation.

If such a PM ever existed, I am 100% confident that the matter would have been taken further, and rightly so.

In short, the person who claimed to have received such a PM was telling lies and when confronted, the person denied ever having made such a claim.

Whether members on here wish to believe this or not is of no interest.

Secondly, Steve Miller is right. Many people on here seem to be paranoid beyond belief. Any strange topic that is started by a newbie is blamed on Swirly Chaser, which is just a tiny bit naive, don't you think? It is fine for people such as Shadow Leader to condemn Swirly Chaser as a low life, but let's not forget what basis is being used to arrive at such an opinion. The PM lie. Perhaps it would be a better environment for everyone if Swirly Chaser (wrongfully banned if the sole reason was the PM that was never sent) was left alone and not mentioned every five minutes.

Lastly, this is meant as a horse racing forum and as Steve and Melendez have pointed out (and CP to an extent), Swirly Chaser offered a fair amount of input. Other actions and postings were simply not acceptable.

Let it go is my opinion on the matter.

Once again, it would be appreciated if this posting was allowed to remain viewable so as to reflect this forum as a fair and just place.

Have a good day.

P.S. Apologies to Kathy for my insulting posting towards her a few weeks back.
 
Originally posted by The World Is Not Enough@Oct 2 2004, 12:19 PM
As this forum is host to many good living individuals, I would ask that this posting remains viewable so as to, at the very least, offer some sort of leverage on the matter.

First of all, the "crime" that was committed was actually not committed at all. If an illegal PM was sent to a member and this member reported the PM to a moderator or the administrator, why was the offending PM not saved and used as evidence? The reason is simply because there was no such PM ever sent.

Some of the more eagle-eyed members may remember that the alleged content of this alleged PM was actually used in a posting viewable by all in a jest aimed at Gearoid. It is very obvious that the person who claimed they had received such a PM was simply telling lies, hence why that person could not produce any evidence to support their allegation.

If such a PM ever existed, I am 100% confident that the matter would have been taken further, and rightly so.

In short, the person who claimed to have received such a PM was telling lies and when confronted, the person denied ever having made such a claim.


Have a good day.

P.S. Apologies to Kathy for my insulting posting towards her a few weeks back.
Click to expand...
and you know that how exactly?
 
Interesting indeed.

I have known Phil Waters for more than three years and like another on this forum, have had a lengthy phone chat with him.

I would only judge someone when I have both sides of the story and do not recognise kangaroo courts.
Can everyone involved in his banning put their hands on their hearts and say they
have heard both sides.
Too many seem to be accepting the banning on others say so.

He rubbed many people up the wrong way but what is new about that ?
 
Fudge,
he has a very good knowledge of racing and i can only think of a handful on this site that are his master.

Taking only Racing as a yardstick,he would still be a definate asset to this site.
 
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that he contributed to a racing forum, whatever he is supposed to have done or not done to upset anyone else.

Ardross has asked us to drop the subject, but the only reason I discussed Swirly at all was because he was being vilified for wiping out the OH Racing forum. Aren't we attributing a bit too much power to him? Would he be capable of doing something of this sort and if so why hasn't he done it here where he is liable to feel most aggrieved?
 
How I know what I know is not really the issue. The issue at hand is that Swirly Chaser did not send an illegal PM to any member of this message board. There is no evidence and was never any evidence to suggest that he did. All there was in circulation was vicious rumours and hearsay nonsense.

However, that seemed sufficient enough to have him banned by the ones in authority and the final call rests with them.

I very much doubt that Swirly Chaser takes an active interest in the goings-on in this place nowadays as he always seemed to be at his most eager to participate when he was able to. I doubt he finds life as a reader of this forum very interesting. Who would?

To suggest that he is an internet super criminal is ludicrous. To further suggest that anyone who visits this message board has no life away from this message board is equally ludicrous and when such an implementation is used on here by someone against another, the person initiating is just using cheap argument as a weapon in a debate. To even further suggest that this is done when the person in receipt of the implementation cannot respond (as in Swirly Chaser's case due to his ban) is the act of a coward.

It remains my opinion that Swirly Chaser was banned unjustly on the basis that no illegal PM was ever sent to any other member.

And once again, I will make it clear that how I know what I know is not the issue.
 
"I doubt he finds life as a reader of this forum very interesting. Who would?"

Totally disagree TWINE. I'm always really interested in reading what I've got to say about almost everything.
 
Originally posted by The World Is Not Enough@Oct 2 2004, 04:44 PM

I very much doubt that Swirly Chaser takes an active interest in the goings-on in this place nowadays as he always seemed to be at his most eager to participate when he was able to. I doubt he finds life as a reader of this forum very interesting. Who would?
Click to expand...
Very strange that you can say all this as someone who registered on the board at the end of August '04. <_< I seem to remember thinking that this userid was indeed yet another of the many Phil created, but one which he tried to use solely for purposeful comment on the general chit chat board, and although I haven't been able to find it, I'm sure he commented on the bond movie your nickname pertains too.
I for one am glad he was banned, and don't give a rat's arse wether he looks in on here or not, provided he cannot post and cause upset and misery to people who he has no justification to malign; and even though he never ever pm'd me, I do know that he did this to others who he thought sympathetic to his cause, so for all those who see him as more sinned on than sinner, I suggest you wake up. Don't you Phil?
 
I just do not see how he can stir up such violent emotions one way or the other. He'd put contentious views up about horse racing sure. But whether you agreed with him or not it was only his view, not compulsory.
 
I believe that TWINE should keep ill informed views to himself. The idea that he knows more than the owner of this forum is preposterous in the extreme. Those of us who know what SC did wrong were and are sickened by it. He should not be allowed back on here as he is scum.
 
Can't see where this thread is going or even why it under this section at all - Jamie has made his point about his site, which is a welcome addition to racing forums as far everyone on here is concerned and the issue of Phil Walters is totally irrelevant to that.

Col made the decision to ban PW, it was supported by all four moderators (and just about every other active member of this board at the time). If you were board contributors back then, you should have made your views heard - I certainly never got any PMs in favour of him staying and it was common knowledge that he was on moderation control before being able to post - he mentioned it himself often enough!

So if those of you who want to include PW in your lives are so keen to do so, then may I suggest you start your own racing board, have great lives and give the rest of us some peace.

Topic now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top