Johnny75

prawnking · Tuesday at 4:11 PM

Sniffer said:
Amongst other bans he’d previously been banned for periods of a month and 3 months. It had therefore gone past the ban periods mentioned in that post.

Weren't those forum rules revised 12 months ago into their current incarnation? (Hence 'New Mod rules')?

I'm pretty sure I was the first person banned following their revision

So did all Johnny's bans come after Nov 2023?

The Saturday Boy · Tuesday at 4:11 PM

Tredman said:
Interesting stance, hope you take Bear's other opinions on women as gospel too.

They aren’t relevant to Johnny being a snitch. Like I said, if it isn’t true I am sure one of the other mods will clarify.

Stan Hullis · Tuesday at 4:12 PM

Yeah snitches get stiches in this place.

prawnking · Tuesday at 4:12 PM

The Saturday Boy said:
They aren’t relevant to Johnny being a snitch. Like I said, if it isn’t true I am sure one of the other mods will clarify.

How is Johnny being 'a snitch' relevant to him being banned?

How does anyone know that any alleged reporting wasn't also for racist or offensive posts?

The Saturday Boy · Tuesday at 4:13 PM

prawnking said:
How is Johnny being 'a snitch' relevant to him being banned?

How does anyone know that any alleged reporting wasn't also for racist or offensive posts?

It isn’t and I haven’t said it was.

Sniffer · Tuesday at 4:16 PM

Stan Hullis said:
Bear has fully embraced his revenge best served cold era.

I don’t like mentioning matters discussed in private but I’ll defend the Bear on this. He made his views clear to the team in the past that he’d step aside from decisions regarding him and would back the consensus. That was the case on this occasion.

I’m happy to give my address out to anyone if they want to aim their potato guns in my direction.

Stan Hullis · Tuesday at 4:18 PM

Sniffer said:
I don’t like mentioning matters discussed in private but I’ll defend the Bear on this. He made his views clear to the team in the past that he’d step aside from decisions regarding him and would back the consensus. That was the case on this occasion.

I’m happy to give my address out to anyone if they want to aim their potato guns in my direction.

I was only joking tbf, but it is hard to read into context posted on a forum at times...

Sniffer · Tuesday at 4:21 PM

About the potato guns. They have real ones?
If that’s the case my address is Mr Hofmeister, Banjoland, Midlands. Bring it on….

Alan · Tuesday at 4:23 PM

Ironically, potato guns are illegal here.

prawnking · Tuesday at 4:29 PM

Sniffer said:
I don’t like mentioning matters discussed in private but I’ll defend the Bear on this. He made his views clear to the team in the past that he’d step aside from decisions regarding him and would back the consensus. That was the case on this occasion.

I’m happy to give my address out to anyone if they want to aim their potato guns in my direction.

Interesting definition of 'stepping aside' when he made the announcement of the permanent ban in the first place and then held forth about the reasoning behind it, the (untrue) unanimity of the decision, his own personal feelings on why Johnny should be banned, and also juicy tidbits about him reporting other posters

Lupo · Tuesday at 4:30 PM

Alan said:
Ironically, potato guns are illegal here.

Because they don't do enough damage?

Elephant Pyjamas · Tuesday at 4:33 PM

prawnking said:
How is Johnny being 'a snitch' relevant to him being banned?

It isn't, but his general character was being discussed wasn't it, as part of that it was relevant?

Tony Towner · Tuesday at 4:34 PM

Stan Hullis said:
Bear has fully embraced his revenge best served cold era.

EP won't be able to stand up in public for a week.

Trips · Tuesday at 4:35 PM

Elephant Pyjamas said:
It isn't, but his general character was being discussed wasn't it, as part of that it was relevant?

If people don't know what posts people are reporting (and they shouldnt) - it shouldnt be discussed at all

Deutsch Wolf · Tuesday at 4:36 PM

prawnking said:
Interesting definition of 'stepping aside' when he made the announcement of the permanent ban in the first place and then held forth about the reasoning behind it, the (untrue) unanimity of the decision, his own personal feelings on why Johnny should be banned, and also juicy tidbits about him reporting other posters

Strong Partridge vibes

Stan Hullis · Tuesday at 4:36 PM

Elephant Pyjamas said:
It isn't, but his general character was being discussed wasn't it, as part of that it was relevant?

Speaking of, do you have anything to substantiate the claims you make against Johnny or are you comfortable with just throwing mud at him whilst he can't defend himself?

I can't seem to find anybody who was there to actually back up what you claim.

Elephant Pyjamas · Tuesday at 4:38 PM

Stan Hullis said:
Speaking of, do you have anything to substantiate the claims you make against Johnny or are you comfortable with just throwing mud at him whilst he can't defend himself?

I can't seem to find anybody who was there to actually back up what you claim.

What specifically are you asking me to substantiate?

Alan · Tuesday at 4:40 PM

Lupo said:
Because they don't do enough damage?

I can't defend my rights armed only with starches innit

ROVERT47 · Tuesday at 4:40 PM

Had a potato gun when I was a kid and a peashooter.

Stan Hullis · Tuesday at 4:42 PM

Elephant Pyjamas said:
I guess another aspect I have, is that I met him in person, he was abusive and condescending then too.

Then also made stuff up about that meet after the fact.

I have just simply found him to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual to me, and I'm not sure why he has targeted me to the extent he has. He's made comments about me personally too.

I can appreciate others haven't endured this so have an entirely different view - but this is my own experience.

@Elephant Pyjamas the part where he was abusive and condescending in person?

I'm not having a go at you, I am genuinely curious because I have asked him, as well as others that were likely there and nobody can recall this happening and so if it didn't then it should be withdrawn, if there is information missing that shows it has happened then fair enough, it is fair game.

Johnny75

Well-known member

Well-known member

Talked the talk and walked the walk.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Talked the talk and walked the walk.

Moderator

…unlucky Del - No chance 😉

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Sponsored by Amazon Prime. DM me for discounts...

Talked the talk and walked the walk.

Well-known member

…unlucky Del - No chance 😉

ACTUAL PROPER ITK

Talked the talk and walked the walk.

Similar threads