# MK2 TT



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

is anyone else tired of it already?


----------



## scottk (Nov 7, 2004)

Big time!


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2006)

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I just can't get enough of it!


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

but..but Audi won't let me down....... lmao.... :roll:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Nope, i'm not bored of the MK2 TT, I think Audi have done a surprisingly great job in keeping it under wraps, and I hope it turns out to be another uniqe car. I have a feeling though this will all end in a damp squib and we will end up with just another 'corporate' looking audi in a slightly coupe shape. Nothing unique about it whatsoever, unlike the MK1. 

What I am i'm bored though is that fucking foreign twat* posting pathetic irrelevent threads, shit photoshops that look they were done by a 4 year old, and general vague pointless information day in day out.

*Disclaimer* - Due to rules against personal flaming I cannot name names, no matter how much I would love to start a thread about this idiot!


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> Nope, i'm not bored of the MK2 TT, I think Audi have done a surprisingly great job in keeping it under wraps, and I hope it turns out to be another uniqe car. I have a feeling though this will all end in a damp squib and we will end up with just another 'corporate' looking audi in a slightly coupe shape. Nothing unique about it whatsoever, unlike the MK1.
> 
> What I am i'm bored though is that fucking foreign twat* posting pathetic irrelevent threads, shit photoshops that look they were done by a 4 year old, and general vague pointless information day in day out.
> 
> *Disclaimer* - Due to rules against personal flaming I cannot name names, no matter how much I would love to start a thread about this idiot!












Couldn't have put better myself Kev.


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

I didnt think Nolive posted any mkii info :?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Hrm - all the MKII & corp look stuff - I like the look of the front of the A3 and A4s having a TT with that "sort" of front won't be a bad thing - just a bit predictable.


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

saint said:


> Hrm - all the MKII & corp look stuff - I like the look of the front of the A3 and A4s having a TT with that "sort" of front won't be a bad thing - just a bit predictable.


I like the front grille. But i would prefer if they came up with something different on the TT. To keep it looking different. The TT should just break the rules from the corp and just be a fun loving b'stard love child


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

is there a mk2 TT coming out :wink:


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I'm just waiting for the forum change made specially for the mk2 owners. mk1's here and the mk2 over there :lol:


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> is there a mk2 TT coming out :wink:


Even Tyneside Audi know about it :wink:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Wallsendmag II said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > is there a mk2 TT coming out :wink:
> ...


must be a lie if they told you :lol:


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Wallsendmag II said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


The salesman said that they were watching some German car forum to see info on it .I nearly mentioned this forum but then realised that I could never go back to a c&b dealership if they looked here :lol:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Wallsendmag II said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > Wallsendmag II said:
> ...


That may be a good thing


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag (Dec 13, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Wallsendmag II said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


Well it would be for servicing but you have to buy the new cars somewhere :wink: :roll:


----------



## Soulctrla (Jan 30, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> Nope, i'm not bored of the MK2 TT, I think Audi have done a surprisingly great job in keeping it under wraps, and I hope it turns out to be another uniqe car. I have a feeling though this will all end in a damp squib and we will end up with just another 'corporate' looking audi in a slightly coupe shape. Nothing unique about it whatsoever, unlike the MK1.
> 
> What I am i'm bored though is that fucking foreign twat* posting pathetic irrelevent threads, shit photoshops that look they were done by a 4 year old, and general vague pointless information day in day out.
> 
> *Disclaimer* - Due to rules against personal flaming I cannot name names, no matter how much I would love to start a thread about this idiot!


I couldn't agree more.... put your fucking etchasketch away - the images arn't even interesting... they offer us nothing..... there is no new information in there... its just two images of stuff we have already seen that you morph together and colour up....

Leave it alone....

MK II i will reserve judgment....


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2006)

Point brilliantly put forward.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Point brilliantly put forward.


wow... so upset after only 2 weeks of forum life... Mr x better sign up for a witness relocation before he gets whacked for his crime :roll:


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2006)

Yawn........................................... :roll: Nice car though Dee. :wink:


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Yawn........................................... :roll: Nice car though Dee. :wink:


ta- but if it gets scratched now I'll do yours! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2006)

Ha ha ha.... 8)


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> What I am i'm bored though is that fucking foreign twat* posting pathetic irrelevent threads, shit photoshops that look they were done by a 4 year old, and general vague pointless information day in day out.
> 
> *Disclaimer* - Due to rules against personal flaming I cannot name names, no matter how much I would love to start a thread about this idiot!


 :lol: :lol: quality


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Dotti said:


> I'm just waiting for the forum change made specially for the mk2 owners. mk1's here and the mk2 over there :lol:


Do we get to get rid of the Essex element too?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

He might post a bunch of crap, but at least he's posting stuff - often stuff we haven't seen before, and you can't argue that it does spark debate - maybe enough debate, across all forums, for Audi to take notice and produce what WE want - so possibly it is having a positive effect. Either way, it is interesting to some of us...

Sorry Kev, your post was a personal attack, whatever way you choose to look at it. Glad to see the moderators are above the rules. :?

Some moderators should think VERY carefully before censoring me in future, as they run the risk of looking like total fucking hypocrites.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

jampott said:


> He might post a bunch of crap, but at least he's posting stuff - often stuff we haven't seen before, and you can't argue that it does spark debate - maybe enough debate, across all forums, for Audi to take notice and produce what WE want - so possibly it is having a positive effect. Either way, it is interesting to some of us...
> 
> Sorry Kev, your post was a personal attack, whatever way you choose to look at it. Glad to see the moderators are above the rules. :?
> 
> Some moderators should think VERY carefully before censoring me in future, as they run the risk of looking like total fucking hypocrites.


[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Further on the hypocrite line, KMPowell frequently denigrates other peoples photoshop skills - perhaps he would care to demonstrate how much better his skills are? I can only recall a poor pornographic photochop as evidence to date?


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Nope, i'm not bored of the MK2 TT, I think Audi have done a surprisingly great job in keeping it under wraps, and I hope it turns out to be another uniqe car. I have a feeling though this will all end in a damp squib and we will end up with just another 'corporate' looking audi in a slightly coupe shape. Nothing unique about it whatsoever, unlike the MK1.
> 
> What I am i'm bored though is that fucking foreign twat* posting pathetic irrelevent threads, shit photoshops that look they were done by a 4 year old, and general vague pointless information day in day out.
> 
> *Disclaimer* - Due to rules against personal flaming I cannot name names, no matter how much I would love to start a thread about this idiot!


One minute, everyone's wittering that he's gone. The next minute it's personal attacks. And that _is _personal. Everyone who's been here more than 5 minutes knows who you mean.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Sorry Kev, your post was a personal attack


In YOUR opinion it 'was', not mine though.


jampott said:


> Some moderators should think VERY carefully before censoring me in future, as they run the risk of looking like total fucking hypocrites.


I don't moderate you Tim, i gave up on that a long time ago. You mange to get frequently moderated all by yourself, without the need of any input from me.


jdn said:


> Further on the hypocrite line, KMPowell frequently denigrates other peoples photoshop skills


Examples of this 'frequent' behaviour?!? The only time I criticise is when people who can clearly use photoshop (or other imaging software) refuse to resize sigs to within the forum guidelines, despite being asked TIME & TIME again.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Kev, your post was a personal attack
> ...


Kev,

It was my opinion. Probably the opinion of the majority of people that read it, too. Only YOU could argue that it isn't a blatant breach of the rules. Of course I'm a fine one to talk - but the point is, you've even less right to behave like that than I do, seeing as you're supposed to be "whiter than white".

I, too, have seen you criticise other people's Photoshop efforts, and the flaws in their technique. I, too, am yet to see any evidence of your "Photoshop genius".

Wind it in - you're in the wrong on this one, but if you want to keep on digging, go right ahead. :roll:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> seeing as you're supposed to be "whiter than white".


No i'm not, far from it! I do step near the line from time to time with my opinions, but becasue you see me in a position of responsibility you feel the need to pick up on it and make a big fucking deal out of it (as do a very predictable select few others). To be lectured by you on keeping to forum rules is a complete joke!



jampott said:


> I, too, have seen you criticise other people's Photoshop efforts, and the flaws in their technique.


Once again, I ask for examples? I may have pointed out that a picture posted was a photoshop and explained why I knew (I use PS everyday as part of my job and have been using it for over 10 years), and i also slate people who cant follow simple sig guidelines, but I don't rip into a members of this forum for their PS skills.



jampott said:


> Wind it in - you're in the wrong on this one, but if you want to keep on digging, go right ahead. :roll:


In your opinion im 'wrong', not mine though.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

Welcome to the worlds biggest ongoing game of oneupmanship. And when you think youve won your little game of verbal football, you all wanna sit back and ask yoursleves what youve really won.
Because outside this forum it adds up to fuck all.
And on here to us new guys... you just look like a bunch of sad cNUts.
Im kinda surprised that so many people on here just look for the argument rather than agree to disagree.
Fucking sad.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > seeing as you're supposed to be "whiter than white".
> ...


There's a forum member on here - an ex Silver TTR driver, now has a TVR, and who lives in the Bristol area. He is a complete CÃ›NT.

There... does THAT get under the censors? 8)


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> And when you think youve won your little game of verbal football, you all wanna sit back and ask yoursleves what youve really won.


I know i've won fuck all mate, I never will, cos he is 'jampoTT' and is always right.

The problem is if you don't reply, he then goes off on one about how you now go quiet etc, starts numerous new threads/replies as a joke or to try and labour the point etc etc. It's a no win situation unfortunately. The trouble is he is too blind to see it and will just carry on regardless.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > And when you think youve won your little game of verbal football, you all wanna sit back and ask yoursleves what youve really won.
> ...


Don't think I've ever accused you of going quiet.

Its not my problem, fella - you made a personal attack, something we're not supposed to do. Then you try and make out it isn't a personal attack. *lol*

I'm just pointing out how hypocritical it would be for you to moderate anyone else in future. Only *you* can't see that.

Damn right, it means fuck-all outside of the forum, but I don't see why that makes a difference? :-*

I've had threads deleted, locked, moved into a hidden forum. I've had my comments censored, and warnings about my future conduct. Its all a fucking joke if the moderators are "allowed" to make insulting posts with no comeback. For that reason alone, my comments are justified - if only to see whether it winds you up enough to censor me.

Go on


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Welcome to the worlds biggest ongoing game of oneupmanship. And when you think youve won your little game of verbal football, you all wanna sit back and ask yoursleves what youve really won.
> Because outside this forum it adds up to fuck all.
> And on here to us new guys... you just look like a bunch of sad cNUts.
> Im kinda surprised that so many people on here just look for the argument rather than agree to disagree.
> Fucking sad.


Sad cnuts, eh? You've already stooped to our level. Welcome to the club 

Our esteemed Mr Powell was happy enough to cast the first stone in this instance. I doubt Iceman (duh!) reads this part of the forum, so probably doesn't know Kev has insulted him (again).

Verbal football is good fun - but when the referee decides to join in, and stoops lower than everyone else, you kinda wonder what is going on.

This isn't the first time Kev's suitability to "moderate" has been bought into question. I doubt it'll be the last, either. :roll:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

Might be an idea to rememeber all the rules laid out in the ettiquette outlines. I remember reading them when i came in here.
I also think theyre there for a reason..... to stop threads coming to matches and facedowns like this.
Might be nice if everyone kept to the rules.
People views are there own, you cant change that. 
But personal attacks are just that.....and i think there pointless, because it just reduces the forum to this.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Might be an idea to rememeber all the rules laid out in the ettiquette outlines. I remember reading them when i came in here.
> I also think theyre there for a reason..... to stop threads coming to matches and facedowns like this.
> Might be nice if everyone kept to the rules.
> People views are there own, you cant change that.
> But personal attacks are just that.....and i think there pointless, because it just reduces the forum to this.


Yeah we know.

But why should I adhere to them, if the people RUNNING the place are exempt? Don't see the fucking point myself. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

I wont dissagree that point. But i did agree with him on the original posting this spawned from. In fact i said it first, just with more tact. Might be an idea just to remind everyone of the rules that this forum puts down. And it might be nice for everyone to stick to them.
I think if i repeat it or say it enough it might sink in...... does with me sometimes. :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> I wont dissagree that point. But i did agree with him on the original posting this spawned from. In fact i said it first, just with more tact. Might be an idea just to remind everyone of the rules that this forum puts down. And it might be nice for everyone to stick to them.
> I think if i repeat it or say it enough it might sink in...... does with me sometimes. :wink:


This discussion isn't about Kev's opinion on Iceman, and the fact that I disagree with him. I'm happy to disagree with him. At the risk of repeating myself for a third time, hoping it might sink in, my only complaint with Kev's posting was the unnecessary personal attack - and my complaint was largely based on its hypocrisy, although (as I've said) I disagreed with the basis for the attack too.

I'm well aware people get bored of Iceman's continual posting of random photoshop images etc. Funny how much he was missed when he wasn't here, though, isn't it? :wink:

There's a new TT on the horizon. Of course speculation is bound to be rife. I barely have an interest in the MK1, let alone the MK2, but I don't let it bother me, and do take an interest when the Iceman commeth.

If you don't like Iceman's postings, however, they're easy enough to avoid. I would imagine 75% of what he posts are new threads, started for debate / discussion, and it would be pretty easy for someone with any literacy or common sense to filter them straight out. :roll:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

Ive seen a few of his postings(iceman). Im the first there with the good debate thing, and i do agree the point that Personal attacks shouldnt be put forward by the moderators of this forum. I know as well as you do it sets a bad example.
Doesnt mean the rest of us have to lower ourselves to that level. 
And i thought of all the people ive spoken to on this forum, you might have been the first to rise above it.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Ive seen a few of his postings(iceman). Im the first there with the good debate thing, and i do agree the point that Personal attacks shouldnt be put forward by the moderators of this forum. I know as well as you do it sets a bad example.
> Doesnt mean the rest of us have to lower ourselves to that level.
> And i thought of all the people ive spoken to on this forum, you might have been the first to rise above it.


Sorry to disappoint. You'll learn


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

DUO3 NAN said:


> And i thought of all the people ive spoken to on this forum, you might have been the first to rise above it.


rotfl :lol: you dont get a post count like Tims by being the first to rise above it :wink:

and fwiw I also believe that mods need to be "whiter than white" however this view was not shared by all of the mod team which is why I stepped down last year.

L


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

I am a mod and I'm white.

Not virginal though.

That OK? :wink:

BTW MKII TT way too dull to comment on. :lol:


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Seeing as you asked:

The current evidence we have of your skills

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/viewtopic.php?t=55369&start=20

And some other threads..

July 2005:



kmpowell said:


> More very poor photoshop work.
> 
> ...will it ever end. :?


April 2005:



kmpowell said:


> The secret with PS is knowing when to stop and which filters/overlays/fonts work together. :roll:
> 
> Good effort though, ill giva ya 6/10
> 
> ... oh and i do get paid to use Photoshop!


Jan 2005



kmpowell said:


> MikeyB said:
> 
> 
> > Hannibal said:
> ...


Dec 2004



kmpowell said:


> Iceman
> 
> When are you going to stop posting this sh!t? This couldn't be a spy shot even in your wildest dreams!
> 
> ...


Sep 2004:



stevett said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give up your day job.
> ...


July 2004:



kmpowell said:


> There is a MUCH easier way to do it that PS, but i'll let you work that out.
> 
> Anyway......


Mar 2004:



kmpowell said:


> Photoshop skills: Must try harder 4/10


July 2003



kmpowell said:


> > It's a lovely graphic, Photoshop is an incredible product but I lack the brain capacity to get the most out of it.
> 
> 
> You dont need a huge brain capacity, you just need to use it regularly so you know where all the 'tools' are off hand. Also you must have a bit of creative flare.


May 2003



kmpowell said:


> prob one of the worst displays of PhotoShop use ive ever seen!


Jan 2003



kmpowell said:


> Filter 'stylising' etc in photoshop Hows about you actually use photoshop for what it was intended and get rid of your photostamp number.  ;D


For all I know you are an expert in Photoshop - you are certainly keen to tell us how good your skills are, but come across as less keen to offer useful constructive comments so others may learn your skills.

Please feel free to post your attempts at a MkII photoshop so we can all see how talented you are.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

He's too busy photoshopping his TVR into a ditch. :lol:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

jdn ~ Your status should be increased to 'Too Much Time On My Hands' for that post. Well done fella. :wink:


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> He's too busy photoshopping his TVR into a ditch. :lol:


 

but

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

nice one jdn !!!  :lol:



DUO3 NAN said:


> Doesnt mean the rest of us have to lower ourselves to that level.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ahem.... like keying someones car because they *might* have done yours eh? :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

Not denying it. :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

But im happy here being a hypocritcal prick for my beliefs. Nice, unlike the pricks that just sit there, moosing it at home, or stagging a sofa wherever, laptop in hand having a dig at me for having such a good life............... Here it is in big block capitals.....(more dots for those that have a phobia for the fuckin things ) ...I COULDNT GIVE A FLYING FUCK.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> But im happy here being a hypocritcal prick for my beliefs. Nice, unlike the pricks that just sit there, moosing it at home, or stagging a sofa wherever, laptop in hand having a dig at me for having such a good life............... Here it is in big block capitals.....(more dots for those that have a phobia for the fuckin things ) ...I COULDNT GIVE A FLYING FUCK.


Why are you here, then? You've got far too many interesting things to do to spend your days AND nights entering "pointless" discussions with a bunch of cnuts on a car forum... :lol:

No laptop, I haven't even touched my sofa this evening. This, for me, is a discussion snatched between bouts of tidying up, DIY and considering what to cook for dinner. Still haven't decided.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

Im quite happily watching sarah beany.... and your meant to be my best mate. tut


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

DUO3 NAN said:


> Im quite happily watching sarah beany.... and your meant to be my best mate. tut


I don't think that's what he said. :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

No, and that post wasnt directed at you...but either way, like i said.... really could give a fuck.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .....................

Oh yeah, looks like a personal attack to me couldn't be directed at anyone else IMO.

Also when I see a post by a twat that I'm not interested in then I don't bother opening the thread therefore avoiding the need to shoot myself in the head or spit the dummy


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Oh and when I say "twat" thats no one in particular . :roll:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Despite what some people used to think, I always treated mods and non-mods equally. It has nothing to do with status, friendships etc.

If I felt it broke the rules I'd do something about it.

*I have no problem with Kev making the post that he made.* Any one can make any post they like *BUT all posts should be subject to moderation if they breach the rules**

The issue is why hasn't it been moderated. If I was still a mod I would probably have pulled this thread as to my mind it breaches the personal flaming rules. If I'd seen it when I was in a particularly mellow mood then I may have just referred to the moderators forum for a concensus before taking action. Either way I would not have just let it be.



t7 said:
 

> and fwiw I also believe that mods need to be "whiter than white" however this view was not shared by all of the mod team which is why I stepped down last year.
> 
> L


That not how I remember it. My memory says that you felt that the thread Kev started about the Pope should be removed under the rules of the forum. I thought you resigned as the rule wasn't applied as you felt it should have been. Once you'd left, Jae confirmed that although the thread was eventually removed by Kev, it shouldn't have been as it broke no forum rule. i.e. there is not a rule about upsetting peoples feelings.

* Incidently this is exactly what I expected (and would have accepted without complaint) when I made my post in the TT Forum about having a baby. Certain people with very fixed minds won't believe this but I frankly don't give a shit. :-*


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Bringing you dot free posts since 05/04/06 - for those with a phobia of dots


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

For those without a phobia for dots here's one I made earlier.

...................................................
...................................................
................
.........
.................................................
.................................................

(Where is my ASCII art creator when I need it)


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jdn said:


> Seeing as you asked:
> 
> The current evidence we have of your skills
> 
> ...


JDN, you really are being a 'jampoTT' aren't you (perhaps that's what we could name this sort of behaviour?)... anyway, without wishing to trawl through the past 3 years of posts and see where you got those examples from, i'll just comment on them directly. Nearly all of those are aimed at the creator of the pics iceman posts. Whether they were his PS attempts or somebody elses, they were piss poor (as MANY people have commented, not just me, so are you going to dig their posts up to?). The others, well they have winks and smiles after them so they are obviously said as tongue and cheek, not 'frequent' ridicule.

For you to spend your time wading through posts to come up with that pathetic little selection of me apparantly frequently(over 3 years is that all you can find!?) ridiculing MANY(?) people, you have some serious issues my freind, but if it makes you happy, you carry on.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

5 minutes via the search facility so easy to find. By frequently I implied most posts including a photoshop received a negative comment from yourself.

You have singularly failed to answer the point though - you enjoy slagging off his work, and boast about your experience and skill - so why not prove it?

I have no 'issues' in particular - clearly you have major ones with Iceman...


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Despite what some people used to think, I always treated mods and non-mods equally. It has nothing to do with status, friendships etc.
> 
> If I felt it broke the rules I'd do something about it.
> 
> ...


ScoTTy this is where we disagree. I believe that if you accept a position of responsibility - any - in life then you need to accept you *may* need to modify your behaviour so as not to bring that position into disrepute. I believe Moderators "should know better" and avoid posting things they know push the rules to the limits. If they want to post whatever they like and take their chances that the thread is pulled or moderated they should step down as a mod. Simple.

Otherwise you end up with a mockery of the moderation system where (as in the Pope thread you refer to) I had three longstanding forum members complain to me about the thread, and yet nothing was done which then gives the "appearance" that moderators are not subject to the same rules as everyone else - a critcism that was raised on that thread iirc.

If you want to be a credible rule/law enforcer then you have to stop pushing the rules to the limit. ergo occasionally a few forum members *might* travel at speeds in excess of 100 mph on the motorway and if they are caught its socially no big deal (apart from for them) however if you are a senior police officer you are pilloried in the press - some might say rightly.

L


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Since when did this thread get back on the subject of Powell again? :? :roll: :lol:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

t7 said:


> ScoTTy this is where we disagree.
> ...
> I believe Moderators "should know better" and avoid posting things they know push the rules to the limits.


In this case it seems Kev genuinely (incorrectly in my opinion) felt it was OK to post. The rules do apply to all mods and hence I think it should have been pulled and he be advised, as per any other poster, that a rule had been broken. If it happens to many times then the mod doesn't understand the rules and hence shouldn't be in a place to enforce them.



t7 said:


> Otherwise you end up with a mockery of the moderation system where (as in the Pope thread you refer to) I had three longstanding forum members complain to me about the thread, and yet nothing was done which then gives the "appearance" that moderators are not subject to the same rules as everyone else - a critcism that was raised on that thread iirc.


Just because people complain, it doesn't mean they are right. The official line and the one I was making at the time, is that the Pope thread broke no rules and therefore should stand. If the thread had broken a rule I would have removed it whether it was posted my a normal poster, a moderator or even Jae.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

p.s. Lou - perhaps as ex-moderators we should run the Moderators Complaints Authority. :lol:


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> t7 said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise you end up with a mockery of the moderation system where (as in the Pope thread you refer to) I had three longstanding forum members complain to me about the thread, and yet nothing was done which then gives the "appearance" that moderators are not subject to the same rules as everyone else - a critcism that was raised on that thread iirc.
> ...


I was not saying that thread should have been pulled - that is a decision that the mods discussed and although I personally didnt agree with the decision I could have accepted it. The issue I had was that _the questionable post had been made by a mod_. In this situation by allowing the post to stand we cast huge doubts on our ability to moderate fairly - and got a fair amount of personal flack in the process. This was a situation we could have avoided entirely if the mod who made the post had taken the approach that with the "status" comes a responsibility not to post controversially.

L


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> p.s. Lou - perhaps as ex-moderators we should run the Moderators Complaints Authority. :lol:


Is there a salary? :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

I love everybody. :-*


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

What an absolutely rollicking thread. Well done everyone 

The forum needs more of this kind of thing IMO.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Carlos said:


> What an absolutely rollicking thread. Well done everyone
> 
> The forum needs more of this kind of thing IMO.


Aye some sterling efforts and deep intransigence. Keep it up.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

garyc said:


> Aye some sterling efforts and deep *intransigence*. Keep it up.


intransigence- what a great word (I had to look it up ).


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

sonicmonkey said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Aye some sterling efforts and deep *intransigence*. Keep it up.
> ...


Maybe Gary had to look it up as well!!

So tell us...what does it mean?


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

t7 said:


> I was not saying that thread should have been pulled - that is a decision that the mods discussed and although I personally didnt agree with the decision I could have accepted it. The issue I had was that _the questionable post had been made by a mod_. In this situation by allowing the post to stand we cast huge doubts on our ability to moderate fairly - and got a fair amount of personal flack in the process. This was a situation we could have avoided entirely if the mod who made the post had taken the approach that with the "status" comes a responsibility not to post controversially.
> 
> L


My view is very simple. Mods should have to simply follow the same rules as everyone else and be treated equally.

I believe your view is that mods should be more restricted than that.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 

I'm still not sure whether flaming people with out using their name is against the rules or not. I wonder if we'll get an answer on this thread or if the mods/Jae are hoping it'll just go away?

I just hope Kev doesn't pull it like he did the Pope one. :roll:


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Yeah fuck everyone :evil: sorry I might have my threads mixed up am I on the right one :?


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

Sooooo anywayyyy, the MkII - shit or what?

Graham


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm waiting for the estate model


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Graham ~ Start your own fucking thread if you want to ask stupid questions. Fucking hijackers. Jeez! :wink:


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

*Cough* :wink:

Graham


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

:wink:


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

I must cut these **** out :roll:

Graham


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Love_iTT said:


> I must cut these **** out :roll:
> 
> Graham


Why, are you trying to do a decoupage picture of the Village People?


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

jampott said:


> Love_iTT said:
> 
> 
> > I must cut these **** out :roll:
> ...


I think that might be a personal attack - mods! :lol:

Graham


----------



## jandrews (Feb 21, 2005)

dee said:


> DUO3 NAN said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn........................................... :roll: Nice car though Dee. :wink:
> ...


Welcome back Dee, havent seen you about for ages....

Hows things, and where are you working now


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

Hi Jon - decided to take a year off and snowboard, dive and play hockey 

I must admit though.... you can only have so much fun before the novelty wears off.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

.......

..

.. (oh go on a couple more for Salnt)

NOT!


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)




----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sonicmonkey said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Aye some sterling efforts and deep *intransigence*. Keep it up.
> ...


Yeah, i thought so.  
Plenty of it around...

Vlastan, as a British citizen, you should not have to ask the meaning. It's a national trait.

:wink:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

dee said:


> Hi Jon - decided to take a year off and snowboard, dive and play hockey
> 
> I must admit though.... you can only have so much fun before the novelty wears off.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
> 
> ...


Oh, for fucks sake. The Forum's gone .................fucking dot crazy! [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

jampott said:


> Love_iTT said:
> 
> 
> > I must cut these **** out :roll:
> ...


Apparently only the Indian was gay.


----------

