Richard Dunn

[Greg]

because its only through disruption to the equilibrium can progress be achieved. What you are advocating is stagnation.

Under certain circumstances or applications that may well be true. In respect of forum ethics which I was writing about, What you have said seems to me to be nonsensical.

[Nick]

I know that you and Phil have had your issues, but there was absolutely no need to turn this place into a cesspit just because you couldn't slug it out anywhere else. It's rude and thoughtless, and for you to say that you have no part in causing it is totally disingenuous.

But at the same time you are defending Phil.

[Nick]

Under certain circumstances or applications that may well be true. In respect of forum ethics which I was writing about, What you have said seems to me to be nonsensical.

But what makes you think there is such a thing as forum ethics, its just an invented concept that is used elsewhere to control what is posted, ie, its a form of censorship. Ethics as a branch of philosophy exists, and its derivation comes from the Greek work Custom or Habit, its not some form of absolute set of standards, just a set of agreed definitions and rules.

Just because you think a thing exists, does not make it so. Just because you find something nonsensical does not make it so.

[Greg]

Under certain circumstances or applications that may well be true. In respect of forum ethics which I was writing about, What you have said seems to me to be nonsensical.

But what makes you think there is such a thing as forum ethics, its just an invented concept that is used elsewhere to control what is posted, ie, its a form of censorship. Ethics as a branch of philosophy exists, and its derivation comes from the Greek work Custom or Habit, its not some form of absolute set of standards, just a set of agreed definitions and rules.

Just because you think a thing exists, does not make it so. Just because you find something nonsensical does not make it so.

Ok, if you want to deviate from the topic, let's not refer to it as forum ethics. Let's just consider it to be common decency, manners and civility, widely adopted and recognised by the forum membership almost in general. It doesn't alter that your previous response seems nonsensical.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I don't hate anyone, Richard. I just object to what used to be a haven of peace and good-natured conversation being polluted with foul mouthed childish bickering. I'm not saying that it's your fault, but it has to be said that for the ten years before your post it didn't happen, and since that moment the place has been knee deep in it. You're very quick to say that it's not your fault, but you know damned well that you are the epicentre, and if you didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't. I know that you and Phil have had your issues, but there was absolutely no need to turn this place into a cesspit just because you couldn't slug it out anywhere else. It's rude and thoughtless, and for you to say that you have no part in causing it is totally disingenuous.

No its not it is true. I hadn't a clue who Noddy was until he set on me when I was last here, I actually tried to ignore him and in the end left (stopped posting), in a way because I saw the forum as not a vehicle for it yet Nick was unwilling or unable to stop it. Then joined at TAS when it opened to find Noddy immediately appeared to start again, so that time I responded. etc etc which has led us to this point. I still don't know why he stalks me across the forums.

[pre65]

[quote="Dr Bunsen Honeydew"I still don't know why he stalks me across the forums.[/quote]

I do not stalk you.

[Nick]

Ok, if you want to deviate from the topic, let's not refer to it as forum ethics. Let's just consider it to be common decency, manners and civility, widely adopted and recognised by the forum membership almost in general. It doesn't alter that your previous response seems nonsensical.

But inherent in what you are saying is the belief that everyone agrees with you, your way is everyone’s way. There is merit, I believe, in having a personal moral code that I try to live by and use to measure my behaviour towards others. However I do not believe that gives me the right to impose that code on another, or in some way decide another is less than myself because of their failing to adhere to my code. If my code is to have any real meaning, then it has to be tested, to test it, it has to be applied in less than easy, comfy situations. Part of the code I apply to this forum, is the concept of no censorship. If I was only to apply that to things I agreed with, then it would be a worthless position to take.

There are at least two possible reasons for "our previous response seems nonsensical". One is its a nonsensical position, the other is you fail to understand it. One, neither, or both of the two previous statements may be true.

[Nick]

[quote="Dr Bunsen Honeydew"I still don't know why he stalks me across the forums.

I do not stalk you.[/quote]

So should we believe that you agree with the rest of the post you quoted from?

[pre65]

[quote="Dr Bunsen Honeydew"I still don't know why he stalks me across the forums.

I do not stalk you.

So should we believe that you agree with the rest of the post you quoted from?[/quote]

Never assume anything, it makes an ass of U and me. Advice I was given donkeys years ago.

Richard says I'm stalking him, I say I'm not. The message is simple and to the point.

Let me say I don't dislike Richard as a person, but his internet persona (on any forum) in not agreeable to me, or many others.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Noddy has one aim in his pursuit, either to get me banned, and if that doesn't work stop me posting. The same desire is at work here.

If you hadn't worked it out Nick the is part of the irritating wind up, it is just part of his way.

[Nick]

Never assume anything, it makes an ass of U and me. Advice I was given donkeys years ago.

I wasnt assuming anything, and I didnt use the word, I was asking for your position.

Richard says I'm stalking him, I say I'm not. The message is simple and to the point.

And contradictory, you are saying one thing, but now and then it seems that your actions are not consistent with that.

Let me say I don't dislike Richard as a person, but his internet persona (on any forum) in not agreeable to me, or many others.

Well, I dont claim to speak for many others. I have only met Richard in person once, he seemed fine, only the one head. I suspect you have never met him at all, so your view on him as a person is only based on those assumptions you earlier warned about. Ok, the only thing you have against him (it seems) is you find him disagreeable on the internet. Hardly seems like a thing worth getting upset about. But it seems you do.

[shane]

I know that you and Phil have had your issues, but there was absolutely no need to turn this place into a cesspit just because you couldn't slug it out anywhere else. It's rude and thoughtless, and for you to say that you have no part in causing it is totally disingenuous.

But at the same time you are defending Phil.

No I'm not. Since you turned up he's hardly been the soul of discretion. But I say again, for the last ten years he's been a useful, interesting, occasionally abrasive and always helpful member of this forum. It's only since you started pushing his buttons, which you do so very skilfully, that there have been any problems. If you didn't do it, neither would he. If you both knocked it on the head, the world would be a better place, and by god it needs to be these days. There's enough conflict in the world without you two squabbling like teenagers.

[Greg]

Greg is a well known Dunn hater from other forums, he kicks at me at TAS regularly, and at AoS. Neither place can I respond even if I want to.

I do not hate you, Richard. I don't hate anyone. I do, however think empathetically about you.

Your use of 'regularly' is a falsehood. Almost a year ago, I did express my disgust of you on TAS after you had (on HFS) falsely accused me of criminally damaging your loan BMU. That was nearly a year ago. I have not made mention of you on TAS since.

I have never said anything about you on AOS. I have probably only posted there about six times in the last four or five years and generally that was when I was selling something.

About two years ago, I was a member of HFS for a short while, but after I challenged what I considered to be you oft repeated hypocrisies, you banned me permenantly.

A so called 'well known Dunn hater from other forums' I most certainly am not. You've got the wrong bloke, mate!

[pre65]

I'm not getting "upset", I just find his manner disagreeable.I did offer to meet Richard face to face so we could try and end his paranoia about me being a stalker, but in his opinion, that made me even more of a stalker.

Richard seems to be the one prolonging antagonism, and he admitted earlier it was "fun".

I have no wish to stop him posting on here, infact I would welcome any knowledge pertaining to our hobby he can impart. But I would reserve the right to disagree with him if necessary.

[Nick]

I know that you and Phil have had your issues, but there was absolutely no need to turn this place into a cesspit just because you couldn't slug it out anywhere else. It's rude and thoughtless, and for you to say that you have no part in causing it is totally disingenuous.

But at the same time you are defending Phil.

No I'm not. Since you turned up he's hardly been the soul of discretion. But I say again, for the last ten years he's been a useful, interesting, occasionally abrasive and always helpful member of this forum. It's only since you started pushing his buttons, which you do so very skilfully, that there have been any problems. If you didn't do it, neither would he. If you both knocked it on the head, the world would be a better place, and by god it needs to be these days. There's enough conflict in the world without you two squabbling like teenagers.

Not sure who the "you" is in your reply to my posts?