Censorship and Social Media

[Stirlingsays]

Yet another completely wrong assertion. Do you have a Specsavers account?

I didn’t call for anyone to be banned. I suggested you might be here because it is more tolerant than others.

Another apology is due

You are right though. It is embarrassing. Even the most prejudiced and biased here do have the decency to apologise when they have made a mistake.

No mirrors with Wisbech.

 

[Spindle]

Delusionally grandiose and self important.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

No mirrors with Wisbech.

The only site that ever permanently banned me was one run by the Catholic Herald. Not because I was offensive in any way but because they couldn’t handle the questions I asked.

No one has the right to call for bans. This isn’t our site. We are users, not owners. Bans are their decisions. We are requested to point out abuses, but that’s different.

 

[Spindle]

So why did you then, indirectly.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

So why did you then, indirectly.

I didn’t.

You, not for the first time, made assumptions apparently based on prejudice, and decided you knew my intentions better than me.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The only site that ever permanently banned me was one run by the Catholic Herald. Not because I was offensive in any way but because they couldn’t handle the questions I asked.

Yeah, I bet it was purely because they couldn't handle your stunning questions...

No one has the right to call for bans. This isn’t our site. We are users, not owners. Bans are their decisions. We are requested to point out abuses, but that’s different.

Thanks for those, somewhat weirdly constructed, unnecessary five sentences. If your next post could inform me on something else I already know I'd be most grateful.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I didn’t.

You, not for the first time, made assumptions apparently based on prejudice, and decided you knew my intentions better than me.

The situational irony knows no bounds with this kid.

 

[chris123]

The only site that ever permanently banned me was one run by the Catholic Herald. Not because I was offensive in any way but because they couldn’t handle the questions I asked.

No one has the right to call for bans. This isn’t our site. We are users, not owners. Bans are their decisions. We are requested to point out abuses, but that’s different.

Not the Ron Noades one?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Yeah, I bet it was purely because they couldn't handle your stunning questions...



Thanks for those, somewhat weirdly constructed, unnecessary five sentences. If your next post could inform me on something else I already know I'd be most grateful.

They ought not have stunned anyone but must have made whoever was running the site feel unable to answer so they took the easy way out.

As to the second point. I overlooked that you know everything, making it pointless for anyone else to contribute. Forgive me.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

The situational irony knows no bounds with this kid.

Glad to know that rotational fouling is alive and thriving!

 

[Stirlingsays]

They ought not have stunned anyone but must have made whoever was running the site feel unable to answer so they took the easy way out.

As to the second point. I overlooked that you know everything, making it pointless for anyone else to contribute. Forgive me.

Considering the Catholics didn't even want you, don't go seeking forgiveness from me.

 

[HKOwen]

Considering the Catholics didn't even want you, don't go seeking forgiveness from me.

If you give oxygen to his endless drivel by engaging then do not expect any let up him

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Considering the Catholics didn't even want you, don't go seeking forgiveness from me.

There were lots of those on the site with whom I enjoyed a friendly relationship. Being married to a Catholic, and attending Church with her, meant I had an interest in some of the beliefs and reasonings. It was the moderator who couldn’t cope.

My request for forgiveness was wrapped in sarcasm. In case you missed it. Which, as you know everything, seems unlikely.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If you give oxygen to his endless drivel by engaging then do not expect any let up him

He's going to post here regardless.

Anyone here for longer than five minutes knows his score. He isn't here for debate or working through an issue: it's just trolling and attention seeking.

Ted engages far more than myself these days, and that's cool, he has a patience I don't have.

Sometimes I choose to engage, most of the time I don't.

 

[Stirlingsays]

There were lots of those on the site with whom I enjoyed a friendly relationship. Being married to a Catholic, and attending Church with her, meant I had an interest in some of the beliefs and reasonings. It was the moderator who couldn’t cope.

Your former missus I presume.

My request for forgiveness was wrapped in sarcasm. In case you missed it. Which, as you know everything, seems unlikely.

Keep up Grandad.

 

[Glazier#1]

He's going to post here regardless.

Anyone here for longer than five minutes knows his score. He isn't here for debate or working through an issue: it's just trolling and attention seeking.

Ted engages far more than myself these days, and that's cool, he has a patience I don't have.

Sometimes I choose to engage, most of the time I don't.

At last.

 

[Stirlingsays]

At last.

What up? Finished re-sticking all the stickers on your Rubik's cube yet?

 

[Spindle]

Glad to know that rotational fouling is alive and thriving!

Playing the victim card, what a surprise.

 

[eaglesdare]

Musk’s X could be banned in Britain over AI chatbot row

Sir Keir Starmer brands deepfakes on social media site ‘disgusting and not to be tolerated’

www.telegraph.co.uk

In fairness I do think two tier kier has a point here about the grok AI generated images. But I also fear it maybe the excuse they are looking for to ban X.

So I think the X / grok team / musk need to get their act together and sort out the AI generated image functionality to stop people abusing it for the things they are using it for.