Calling Gareth Flynn

Desert Orchid said:
For all I can be as thin-skinned as a grape at times, I took Tom's remarks as more of a scattergun attack than directed personally at anyone.
Click to expand...

It is remarkable the things some people do find offensive DO!

For what its worth, I actually did not find Tom's postings that offensive personally,not at all in fact. However, I do want (and hope most of the regulars on here) some level of standards and reasonable coherent debate on here. Like I said earlier, putting aside all past views on Tom (and they were all positive I might add), does anyone think the comments mentioned were remotely positive or likely to form a meaningful or genuine debate in any shape or form? Of course not, and as we have seen with this forum in the past (and other forums right now) that if you let things slide or let one "get away with it" the place soon falls apart.

Honest Tom can post on here as much as he likes (he is not banned nor will not be), he can share views with the forum that I or any other member completely disagrees with (that is the point of the place)....but he or no other member is allowed (or should be allowed) drag a thread into the gutter in the way the thread in question was.
 
Last edited:
Can't argue with any of that really Gal, and I reckon that's a good place to draw a line under the whole episode too.
 
It's very easy

A complains about B
B complains about A
A gets C to complain about B
B gets D to complain about A
E complains about both A & B
F complains about the forum and what A, B, C & D are doing to it
G complains there's too much moderation in response to A and B's activities
H complains there isn't enough moderation in response to A and B's activities

Now anyone whose had their hand on the tiller of moderation will recognise this kind of scenario, it isn't unusual
 
Regardless of the nature of the thread, if I choose to call someone a "bog-trotting spud-scoffer" as part of my contribution, I would expect to be given a yellow-card and a stern warning.

If I chose, after several jousts, to call them a "typical Mick", I would expect to be given the red card.

There is a line that one chooses to cross, or not cross. If a given member's argument ultimately boils down to "You're a Brit/Mick, and you're just like every other Brit/Mick", their contribution isn't worth listening to anyway. Especially so on a horse-racing forum - one of the sanctuary's that have always been free of such sectarian nonsense.

If this is genuinely Honest Tom's level of debate, then we are well shot of him, imo - even if his wit is drier than an Arabian Martini.
 
Grasshopper said:
Regardless of the nature of the thread, if I choose to call someone a "bog-trotting spud-scoffer" as part of my contribution, I would expect to be given a yellow-card and a stern warning.

If I chose, after several jousts, to call them a "typical Mick", I would expect to be given the red card.
Click to expand...
I'd be honoured if Grasshopper called me a spud-scoffing bog-trotter, or similar, as that's primarily what I aspire to.
 
Grasshopper said:
Regardless of the nature of the thread, if I choose to call someone a "bog-trotting spud-scoffer"
Click to expand...

Is that a derrogatory, albiet indirect, remark aimed in the direction of the mighty Beef Or Salmon?!

I'll let Gareth sort you out... :lol:
 
Last edited:
I really do wish you pair of bead-rattling, wafer-nibblers would clear off..........I'm trying to get a serious point across.
 
Grasshopper said:
Regardless of the nature of the thread, if I choose to call someone a "bog-trotting spud-scoffer" as part of my contribution, I would expect to be given a yellow-card and a stern warning.

If I chose, after several jousts, to call them a "typical Mick", I would expect to be given the red card.

There is a line that one chooses to cross, or not cross. If a given member's argument ultimately boils down to "You're a Brit/Mick, and you're just like every other Brit/Mick", their contribution isn't worth listening to anyway. Especially so on a horse-racing forum - one of the sanctuary's that have always been free of such sectarian nonsense.
Click to expand...

The inconsistency is that I've been called Jock, haggis basher, haggis muncher etc., "typically tightfisted Scot" on here, complained and nothing was done about it.

Double standards are often worse than no standards.
 
I don't think it pays to get too precious about it, DO.

Scots are Jocks, and Irish are Paddy's. Ever shall it be thus.

I think all Scots and Irish are prepared to concede as much, without getting upset, aren't they? That's certainly been my experience.

As for "Haggis basher" and "Haggis muncher"? Well, it's really no different to my "spud gobbler" stuff, which has - so far - been taken in the context and sprit intended. "Typically tight-fisted Scot" I can also happily ignore, though the irony is that I would personally hesitate to call someone a "typically tight-fisted Jew".

I guess we all have to decide on whether malice is intended ,or whether we are dealing with straightforward piss-taking.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
The inconsistency is that I've been called Jock, haggis basher, haggis muncher etc., "typically tightfisted Scot" on here, complained and nothing was done about it.

Double standards are often worse than no standards.
Click to expand...


I think inconsistancy might also apply to people who put things in quotation marks, because they think they've been called something without checking whether they actually have.

Take this one;

"DO, no-one will ever have to worry about you putting them up, because you're too damn tight to even buy a tail-hair in a syndicate!" = "typically tightfisted Scot"?

In fact try the exercise yourself. Take the words you mention in the sequence that you've quoted them, and put them into the forum search facility. Surprisingly only one thread comes up in each case, and unless there's a serious malfunction or misuse of the software on my part, (which I'll happily apologise for, should this turn out to be the case) but I can't find it. I've tested it by using words which bring up records going back years and the only person whose recorded as using these phrases is ...... yourself ..... about yourself ..... on this thread.


I would suggest that the Scots have a fine tradition of invention, (but that could be offensive), but there's nothing that i can find to support your allegation in the way that you've so confidentally put it in quotation marks.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I think inconsistancy might also apply to people who put things in quotation marks, because they think they've been called something without checking whether they actually have.

Take this one;

"DO, no-one will ever have to worry about you putting them up, because you're too damn tight to even buy a tail-hair in a syndicate!" = "typically tightfisted Scot"?

In fact try the exercise yourself. Take the words you mention in the sequence that you've quoted them, and put them into the forum search facility. Surprisingly only one thread comes up in each case, and unless there's a serious malfunction or misuse of the software on my part, (which I'll happily apologise for, should this turn out to be the case) but I can't find it. I've tested it by using words which bring up records going back years and the only person whose recorded as using these phrases is ...... yourself ..... about yourself ..... on this thread.


I would suggest that the Scots have a fine tradition of invention, (but that could be offensive), but there's nothing that i can find to support your allegation in the way that you've so confidentally put it in quotation marks.
Click to expand...

That goes down as one of the saddest posts I've ever read on this forum.
 
Hell's bleedin' teeth! That comment was aimed (by me) specifically at DO, the man - not because of his Scottishness, but because he's made a virtue - which he's publicised enough times on this and other forums - of being very careful with his expenditures. In context, it was set against him saying he'd never 'put one up' on any horse he had when referring to female jockeys. I know he got a wee bit grape-skinned over it, but I think he and I have had enough years in the same playpen to be able to get past the odd snip at each other. It wasn't aimed at being Scottish - it was aimed at being Dessie - king of the bargain hunt!

For what it's worth (5p in the current market), I don't think it furthers any discussion to hurl insults - general or personal - at anyone posting on here.
 
A reality check please.

This is getting way, way too heavy.
For what it's worth my thought are;

Re HT's comments. HT has been around for yonks and most people would be used to the tone of some of his comments and not take offence. In the instance that is the original subject of this thread he was probably a little out of order. HT makes many humourous and original posts and whilst some might seem sharp it would be a loss to the forum should he refrain from posting. Surely a little nudge rather than " disciplinary action" would have been more appropriate.We are not in school.

Complaining to Mods. Generally I would rather drop a gentle PM to the poster than complain about abuse between third parties although if the poster is directly offensive then maybe the Mods should be involved.

Taking the Pi$$. Its a general trait for people in these islands to take the pi$$ when the feel comfortable with someone. Though I have met but a few members I feel I can take the pi$$ at times because I feel comfortable from the nature of their posts that the targets will take it as it is meant. One can pick individual posts out of context and they will appear offensive.

Lets not turn this into a reason for another major exodus
 
And what Dessie lacks in reckless expenditure, I must say he more than makes up for in charm, wit, and devilish good looks...
 
Tout Seul said:
A reality check please.

This is getting way, way too heavy.
For what it's worth my thought are;

Re HT's comments. HT has been around for yonks and most people would be used to the tone of some of his comments and not take offence. In the instance that is the original subject of this thread he was probably a little out of order. HT makes many humourous and original posts and whilst some might seem sharp it would be a loss to the forum should he refrain from posting. Surely a little nudge rather than " disciplinary action" would have been more appropriate.We are not in school.

Complaining to Mods. Generally I would rather drop a gentle PM to the poster than complain about abuse between third parties although if the poster is directly offensive then maybe the Mods should be involved.

Taking the Pi$$. Its a general trait for people in these islands to take the pi$$ when the feel comfortable with someone. Though I have met but a few members I feel I can take the pi$$ at times because I feel comfortable from the nature of their posts that the targets will take it as it is meant. One can pick individual posts out of context and they will appear offensive.

Lets not turn this into a reason for another major exodus
Click to expand...

As ever, masses of common sense from the old guy...
 
Desert Orchid said:
That goes down as one of the saddest posts I've ever read on this forum.
Click to expand...

Really?. Sad for who?

You're quite prepared to come on here and accuse us of applying "double standards" with the expressed conclusion that doing so is worse than "having no standards". You then proceed to back this allegation up by producing a number of verbatim quotes that you claim to have been called, which reflect on your Scottishness. Unfortunately, if no one was here to put the record straight, other posters might believe you, and in doing so you will have helped propogate the idea of inconsistancy (which was the banner that you flew your original allegation under). The record shows that you've never been called any of those things that you say you have. Indeed, it shows that you're the first person whose introduced all three of these terms to this forum. I'm more than happy for the forum to be aware of this under the circumstances. Why shouldn't I be? I think it's a bit disingenious of you to be honest. It's not as if I've invited you to correct yourself when I've politely tried to put the record straight so far as we can best establish it objectively. Indeed, someone who wantonly misrepresents situations to achieve a calculated impact might be called much worse than what you've chose to level at me, and the other moderators by proxy, who you believe have failed to defend you against anti-scottish posts and insults aimed at you, that have never been made.

TS - we don't normally discuss PM traffic, but in this case the PM route was taken first and seemingly ignored by the receipient. It would be an unfair representation to allow a record to stand that left the impression otherwise
 
Last edited:
Tout Seul said:
Re HT's comments. HT has been around for yonks and most people would be used to the tone of some of his comments and not take offence. In the instance that is the original subject of this thread he was probably a little out of order. HT makes many humourous and original posts and whilst some might seem sharp it would be a loss to the forum should he refrain from posting. Surely a little nudge rather than " disciplinary action" would have been more appropriate.We are not in school.
Click to expand...

He received a "little nudge" when his first post was deleted for personal abuse. He continued with his tirade - with no action taken against him - until he went completely over the top, at which point the thread was locked. He then chose to argue against this publicly, and received a public answer. In an attempt to prevent exactly the kind of thread that you're now reading, he was then placed on Mod Control. I then sent him a lengthy PM about the situation. His response was to get someone else to start this thread calling me out on my actions. He has been off Mod Control since my first post in this thread. At no point was he banned.

Again: read the BHA thread. Has he been prevented from getting his point across?

Since you've both been around for so long, go further: consider his entire posting history and the controversial subjects on which the vast majority of his posts focus. How often has he been prevented from making his point?

And finally: are his accusations in his message relayed by Homer at the start of this thread accurate? For example: that "threads are closed at the least sign of disagreement"? That "this place has been hijacked by stuffed shirts and racing apologists"? (Bearing in mind what definition of "racing apologist" might be held by someone who has repeatedly stated his wish to see the sport completely die out.)
 
Back
Top