Stop The Natsi References Now Please.

[WeeBud]

Drew thinks Stu's input is good for the Yes campaign. I think the personal attacks on Stu might be counter-productive to the Yes people. You think I'm wrong. Does that mean you think Drew's right? I think you're wrong in thinking that I would presume to think or speak for the masses. I think I can think what I like. I think you can think what you like. Have you ever heard of The Thought Police?

Complete misinterpretation of what I was saying old chap and somewhat rather defensive!!

The constant belittling of all things and all people Scottish is what is driving my thoughts, this completely negative mind-set to what we can achieve as a country is what is turning my vote.

I didn't for a second think or suggest you were talking for the masses.............. I was saying that I certainly didn't think I was and that my thoughts were singular and not the way that everyone else may or may not think.

[Stuart Dickson]

Oh FFS. Can people stop talking about me like someone's interfered with my bollocks.

I've been used to this kind of nonsense for near on 16 years. It started when a St Mirren fan - then a St Mirren Guestbook User - phoned my mobile phone and told me what school my then 5 year old son attended, warning me that I should make sure I pick him up from school that day or he might not make it home. It continued when Bill Lees told me he'd hang me from the top of the Blackpool Tower using a St Mirren scarf. And I've had various threats at one level or another right down to Cockles threatening to come to a kids football match to film me calling him a Natsi, and North Sea Saint liking people with big mouths cause it makes it easier to hit them. I've learned not to take those threats too seriously since none of them have ever come to anything, and indeed most of the threats tend to end up with the person threatening me offering to buy me a pint somewhere. It's just the nature of these forums.

I do think it is a bit pathetic though that someone like Ayrshire Saint, who hasn't been slow to dish out the threats in the past, is on here trying to get either me, or a word I used, banned. I have a respect for people who can take as much abuse as they give out. I don't really have much time for people who like to dish out the abuse but who spend their time crying and rolling on the grass when someone gives them a bit back.

[RickMcD]

Your words - A lot of the Yes posters on here have behaved like they were demented. They all say he is crazy, doesn't have a clue, he's not worth listening to but they swallow it and go for it hook ,line and sinker. The digs about his failed marriage were way below the belt but we've come to expect that kind of thing from them.

i.e. It's the Yes men who are abusing him. Even those who abused him prior to the independence debate.

What's the heading on this thread? This and the referendum thread are only about the independence debate. I think digs about his failed marriage are unacceptable wherever they might crop up on the B&W Army.

[Drew]

Oh FFS. Can people stop talking about me like someone's interfered with my bollocks.

I've been used to this kind of nonsense for near on 16 years. It started when a St Mirren fan - then a St Mirren Guestbook User - phoned my mobile phone and told me what school my then 5 year old son attended, warning me that I should make sure I pick him up from school that day or he might not make it home. It continued when Bill Lees told me he'd hang me from the top of the Blackpool Tower using a St Mirren scarf. And I've had various threats at one level or another right down to Cockles threatening to come to a kids football match to film me calling him a Natsi, and North Sea Saint liking people with big mouths cause it makes it easier to hit them. I've learned not to take those threats too seriously since none of them have ever come to anything, and indeed most of the threats tend to end up with the person threatening me offering to buy me a pint somewhere. It's just the nature of these forums.

I do think it is a bit pathetic though that someone like Ayrshire Saint, who hasn't been slow to dish out the threats in the past, is on here trying to get either me, or a word I used, banned. I have a respect for people who can take as much abuse as they give out. I don't really have much time for people who like to dish out the abuse but who spend their time crying and rolling on the grass when someone gives them a bit back.

You deliberately court controversy, Stuart, so it is hollow at best when you refer to the above perceived threats and intimidation. You clearly don't take them remotely seriously or, let's face it, you wouldn't come back for more. There's little point in reflecting such dramatic instances of threatening behaviour when you appear to have done very little to avoid being made subject to them. On the contrary, it seems to be your raison d'etre much of the time.

There is a difference in terms of the context of this thread. People have consistently stated that they find the term you insist on using to be offensive. On that basis, I don't think it is unreasonable that the site administrators should review its use. You are equally entitled to report any abuse you have been subject to, but are probably less likely to do so as you seem to get your jollies from stirring up, and, as I've suggested, courting such responses.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

I agree with you. God knows I've knocked StuDick plenty at times over the years almost all of which was related to his attitude to St.Mirren and Stewart Gilmour. A lot of the Yes posters on here have behaved like they were demented. They all say he is crazy, doesn't have a clue, he's not worth listening to but they swallow it and go for it hook ,line and sinker. The digs about his failed marriage were way below the belt but we've come to expect that kind of thing from them. I've developed a reluctant admiration for the guy the way he takes it on the chin and comes straight back.

If you read this,Stu, you're still on ignore, you still talk shite about St.Mirren but keep up your No campaign. You are giving us a lot of laughs while some can only simmer.

I agree with you. God knows I've knocked StuDick plenty at times over the years almost all of which was related to his attitude to St.Mirren and Stewart Gilmour. A lot of the Yes posters on here have behaved like they were demented. They all say he is crazy, doesn't have a clue, he's not worth listening to but they swallow it and go for it hook ,line and sinker. The digs about his failed marriage were way below the belt but we've come to expect that kind of thing from them. I've developed a reluctant admiration for the guy the way he takes it on the chin and comes straight back.

If you read this,Stu, you're still on ignore, you still talk shite about St.Mirren but keep up your No campaign. You are giving us a lot of laughs while some can only simmer.

So do you go for it hook and line with Yes voters Rick.

Thing is Stuart not on a wind up he is deadly serious so how it's hook and line just curious.

[Stuart Dickson]

You deliberately court controversy, Stuart, so it is hollow at best when you refer to the above perceived threats and intimidation. You clearly don't take them remotely seriously or, let's face it, you wouldn't come back for more. There's little point in reflecting such dramatic instances of threatening behaviour when you appear to have done very little to avoid being made subject to them. On the contrary, it seems to be your raison d'etre much of the time.

There is a difference in terms of the context of this thread. People have consistently stated that they find the term you insist on using to be offensive. On that basis, I don't think it is unreasonable that the site administrators should review its use. You are equally entitled to report any abuse you have been subject to, but are probably less likely to do so as you seem to get your jollies from stirring up, and, as I've suggested, courting such responses.

I speak my mind Drew, both on this forum and in real life. I've never looked for popularity but I've both got and made plenty of acquaintances and contacts through the guestbook, the Offiical forum, Pie and Bovril and on here. You've met me off the forums - was I really any different to how you expected me to be?

I don't get "jollies" from being threatened or to having bits of my personal life discussed on here but I am strong willed enough to laugh it off. Perhaps it's a shame that so many delicate souls on here who are happy to dish it out aren't quite so able to take it when it's given back.

[RickMcD]

So do you go for it hook and line with Yes voters Rick.

Thing is Stuart not on a wind up he is deadly serious so how it's hook and line just curious.

The point I was making when I used the term hook, line and sinker was meant to imply that by responding to every single utterance of Stu's, be it a well made point opposing independence, a very debatable point or just ludicrous shite, you and everyone else responding gives it an element of credibility and the oxygen of publicity. He's loving it and a much better tactic would have been to ignore him completely. I know he's not on a wind up. He believes passionately in the Union as do I. It's not uncommon.

[beyond our ken]

The point I was making when I used the term hook, line and sinker was meant to imply that by responding to every single utterance of Stu's, be it a well made point opposing independence, a very debatable point or just ludicrous shite, you and everyone else responding gives it an element of credibility and the oxygen of publicity. He's loving it and a much better tactic would have been to ignore him completely. I know he's not on a wind up. He believes passionately in the Union as do I. It's not uncommon.

You defend the union

But come 19/9 , should the vote be no, you expect to work in a union with the people you wrongly accuse of being sympathetic with one person who mentioned Dickson's divorce, just because they are pro independence'?

What hypocrisy, but no more than I expect from you as an individual

[beyond our ken]

Lovely post. The third paragraph in particular is despicable and I wonder if the mods will consider it.

The point I was making when I used the term hook, line and sinker was meant to imply that by responding to every single utterance of Stu's, be it a well made point opposing independence, a very debatable point or just ludicrous shite, you and everyone else responding gives it an element of credibility and the oxygen of publicity. He's loving it and a much better tactic would have been to ignore him completely. I know he's not on a wind up. He believes passionately in the Union as do I. It's not uncommon.

You defend the union

But come 19/9 , should the vote be no, you expect to work in a union with the people you wrongly accuse of being sympathetic with one person who mentioned Dickson's divorce, just because they are pro independence'?

What hypocrisy, but no more than I expect from you as an individual

Also, you invited the mods to consider my reference to Craig as a geriatric journeyman coach

How very selective of you

Edited August 20, 2014 by beyond our ken

[RickMcD]

You defend the union

But come 19/9 , should the vote be no, you expect to work in a union with the people you wrongly accuse of being sympathetic with one person who mentioned Dickson's divorce, just because they are pro independence'?

What hypocrisy, but no more than I expect from you as an individual

Also, you invited the mods to consider my reference to Craig as a geriatric journeyman coach

How very selective of you

If anybody understands the second paragraph above would they kindly explain it to me. I still think your comment about TC is reprehensible and I don't know why the mods don't consider personal comments of that nature OTT. Had it been sexist or racist would it have been treated differently? It was ageist but apart from that the whole nature of the remark about someone only three months in the St.Mirren manager's chair is completely unreasonable. I don't think you should have got off scot free. Nice of you to repeat it though.

[faraway saint]

As far as I know, he was the one who brought it up first. If you don't want someone to use something against you then don't let them know about it. I think this is the list of everything anyone on here knows about me:-

I'm going to vote Yes at the referendum.

I once drove buses, I no longer do.

I have a degree in Mathematics.

I have been divorced.

I think that's it (there might be one or two other wee bits), apart from what's in my profile. There are only two people who know who I really am and neither of them post on here although both do read the forum. I'm not doing it to hide and throw vile accusations at people, I only say things I can back up (like Dorothy is thick, lies and misrepresents), I'm doing it because standing up and shouting "Look, it's me" wouldn't add anything to any debate or discussion I have on here. That's how you avoid personal abuse online. Apart from, of course, getting called a racist by a certain member of this forum (guess who) because I am voting Yes.

Can I guess, please , please, please......................

Although it could take a while, so many names......................

[oaksoft]

What hypocrisy, but no more than I expect from you as an individual

What's hypocritical is Rick calling everyone else names and then stamping his feet and crying because others do it too.

In a post complaining about personal abuse he calls Dickson an idiot.

It's pathetic.

Stuart is a big boy and I'm sure he can handle himself. It's cringeworthy watching Rick playing his patsy.

If Stuart wants me to stop taking the piss over his divorce he knows where to contact me.

I guess there will always be people just waiting to be offended on behalf of someone else. To be offended on behalf of someone who clearly doesn't give two shits about it is ridiculous.

[Bud Bundy]

If anybody understands the second paragraph above would they kindly explain it to me. I still think your comment about TC is reprehensible and I don't know why the mods don't consider personal comments of that nature OTT. Had it been sexist or racist would it have been treated differently? It was ageist but apart from that the whole nature of the remark about someone only three months in the St.Mirren manager's chair is completely unreasonable. I don't think you should have got off scot free. Nice of you to repeat it though.

[Bud Bundy]

If anybody understands the second paragraph above would they kindly explain it to me. I still think your comment about TC is reprehensible and I don't know why the mods don't consider personal comments of that nature OTT. Had it been sexist or racist would it have been treated differently? It was ageist but apart from that the whole nature of the remark about someone only three months in the St.Mirren manager's chair is completely unreasonable. I don't think you should have got off scot free. Nice of you to repeat i

Edited August 20, 2014 by Bud Bundy

[bluto]

I guess there will always be people just waiting to be offended on behalf of someone else.

There ARE people like that - the Yes men on this forum.

Whingeing about the use of a word by someone.

If they don't like it, THEY have the ability to ignore its use. Don't go crying for an adult/mod to take steps to prevent you from encountering it. Grow a pair.

Use the IGNORE facility.

Some Bravehearts, these Yes-men are..... I cannae imagine William Wallace having been put off by name-calling.

[buddiecat]

There ARE people like that - the Yes men on this forum.

Whingeing about the use of a word by someone.

If they don't like it, THEY have the ability to ignore its use. Don't go crying for an adult/mod to take steps to prevent you from encountering it. Grow a pair.

Use the IGNORE facility.

Some Bravehearts, these Yes-men are..... I cannae imagine William Wallace having been put off by name-calling.

be careful, calling them yes-men may infer that they are easily led and will defend their leader even if they know that what their leader tells them is total bunkum - wait i see what you mean

[iTony]

You're just a poor mans Elvis

Why would that statement annoy me? Everyone knows that Elvis is the King.

[iTony]

While that is the meaning you would be a naïve fool to dismiss the connotations the word conjures up.

This "free speech" is open to abuse when people, quite openly, use words & terms that are offensive.

It's a fine line but the word were discussing I find very offensive, and as such, I feel should be banned.

I suppose I'm allowed that opinion?

Was this in the past?

Just to clarify, it's the word I find offensive, using it is not deserving of a ban, on it's own, for anybody.

Oh the irony...You really couldn't make it up...

Edited August 20, 2014 by iTony

[beyond our ken]

If anybody understands the second paragraph above would they kindly explain it to me. I still think your comment about TC is reprehensible and I don't know why the mods don't consider personal comments of that nature OTT. Had it been sexist or racist would it have been treated differently? It was ageist but apart from that the whole nature of the remark about someone only three months in the St.Mirren manager's chair is completely unreasonable. I don't think you should have got off scot free. Nice of you to repeat it though.

OK, deep breath, Paragraph two means the following.

You think it is OK to label people that YOU want to be in a union with Nazis, disregarding the fact that just about all would be happy to take a NO vote with good grace, they just have to take it because you said so? You think it is cheeky of someone to complain about name calling, yet you indulge in it yourself, you also think a comment about Craig's age is a good reason to take vicarious offence but don't recognise the opinion of some people who complain about their own treatment. Who the hell are you to be the arbiter on what the mods act on and what they don't?

You also imply (very strongly) that everyone who supports independence on this forum is also OK with the jibes about dickson's marriage, Doesnt matter a fig to you if some of us resent that, we just have to take it because you say so.

-that is hypocrisy, seems to me that you are more of an imperialist than a unionist.

i can understand your fear though, i have heard that there is concern on what a YES vote will mean in NI

[bluto]

OK, deep breath, Paragraph two means the following.

You think it is OK to label people that YOU want to be in a union with Nazis, disregarding the fact that just about all would be happy to take a NO vote with good grace, they just have to take it because you said so? You think it is cheeky of someone to complain about name calling, yet you indulge in it yourself, you also think a comment about Craig's age is a good reason to take vicarious offence but don't recognise the opinion of some people who complain about their own treatment. Who the hell are you to be the arbiter on what the mods act on and what they don't?

You also imply (very strongly) that everyone who supports independence on this forum is also OK with the jibes about dickson's marriage, Doesnt matter a fig to you if some of us resent that, we just have to take it because you say so.

-that is hypocrisy, seems to me that you are more of an imperialist than a unionist.

i can understand your fear though, i have heard that there is concern on what a YES vote will mean in NI

I thought Ricky was trying to help you...?

Unlike calling someone a Natsi, using racism and sexism are illegal, as is ageism.

The website COULD get into trouble for breaking the law, which is why the Mods would be likely to nip it in the bud.

Or you could get into trouble for it....

[beyond our ken]

Its just a shortening of national socialist. Which is what they are of course.

Banning words is authoritarian and anti freedom of speech and is almost always peddled by haters of free speech. Like the ludicrous banning of certain words we have used for ages to describe Rangers fans this is just pathetic bleating by a special interest minority group.

These words you speak of, do you tend to use them when personally addressing Rangers fans?

[saintargyll]

I thought Ricky was trying to help you...?

Unlike calling someone a Natsi, using racism and sexism are illegal, as is ageism.

The website COULD get into trouble for breaking the law, which is why the Mods would be likely to nip it in the bud.

Or you could get into trouble for it....

i seen what you did there....clever

[beyond our ken]

I thought Ricky was trying to help you...?

Unlike calling someone a Natsi, using racism and sexism are illegal, as is ageism.

The website COULD get into trouble for breaking the law, which is why the Mods would be likely to nip it in the bud.

Or you could get into trouble for it....

I used the term in a descriptive way and not in an abusive way, so harsh, but not illegal. You are allowed to call old people geriatric. if i had added a sweary to it then that would have been abusive. Anyway, the word i should have used is aged.

But the notion of Rick helping someone on the forum? that is libellous (and hilarious)

even dickson is feigning mortification at McD's recent intervention on his behalf

[iTony]

i can understand your fear though, i have heard that there is concern on what a YES vote will mean in NI

Oh no! Get your tin hats on people!!!

[Stuart Dickson]

I used the term in a descriptive way and not in an abusive way, so harsh, but not illegal. You are allowed to call old people geriatric. if i had added a sweary to it then that would have been abusive. Anyway, the word i should have used is aged.

But the notion of Rick helping someone on the forum? that is libellous (and hilarious)

even dickson is feigning mortification at McD's recent intervention on his behalf

There's no feigning - trust me.