I certainly consider you a friend too, and respect your opinion. Let me try and explain.

There is no implication. I do have a stick, and I'm NOT afraid to use it if necessary. That goes with the "moderator" under my name. However, i dont want to use it regularly and I would rather warn people to back off before having to get seriously involved in order to keep the peace.

Now, what I hope I've done its warn them that if they get nasty about each other, that further action will not be far away. There is a lot of paperwork in triplicate and sworn affadavids etc involved in banning users (no, not really)

Granted, I could do it by PM, and would have if it was just one person having a go, but as it was two or three people, it becomes more work. Now EVERYONE who reads it knows where the line is, so with any luck it might save me having to send PMs in other threads at a later date, which cuts down the amount of time I spend as a moderator here, allowing more time to answer newbie posts properly or just to hang out, etc etc.

Its preventative action, and over the last few months seems to have helped get most people here on the same page I hope. Its certainly less effort to moderate here now than it was 6 months ago when everyone was getting used to the idea again and there were a dozen or more posts reported daily as abusive to deal with and smooth over.

Now I dont want to speak for CO, but that seems to me what she was trying to say to butch at the start of this thread, that starting threads to comment on other threads or make some point about them was sailing a little close to the point of trolling and posting just to provoke a heated discussion, when it would be better for all concerned to just live and let live and move on to the next thread...

I hope its now clear where I am coming from.

Absolute BULLSHIT, this was started as a SERIOUS thread. We had seen no mention of Eddies efforts, I simply asked what most people considered MORE newsworthy.

I admit I may be guilty of sarcasm in other threads, but not at the START of this one.

Anyway what is wrong with trying to promote a heated discussion? As I have continually stated over the last couple of days the forum (to me at least) is verging on the tedious. If you want that then I suggest watching Entertainment Tonight Canada and the local news from Halifax

Well said matey,i have a gander on here from time to time,and if some of the clowns who post on here were stood next to me,id knock em out,for sure.
You mods!!are alright,and i hate rules!!!!!!!!!!!!

So where are you 'matey'?

Behind You!

you wish

Its like the boy who cried wolf though isnt it...I can see that maybe there is some truth in that, but there is "no smoke without fire" too. COs first post was about eddie izzard, then there was some personal spat between you and someone else after a sarchastic comment (something you are no stranger to) and it went south from there. Erm...the rules

To be honest I dont have a problem with interesting subject for debate, they can always be moved to the lounge or whatever, but as I said elsewhere, I do have a problem when the discussion veers towards bickering, name calling and personal abuse.

This is where we disagree I believe that if you feel a particular thread is headed for the rhubarb and wish to drag it back onto the runway then you should be using PM's even if it does mean more work for yourself.

I don't necessarily see it as preventative but more so intimidation.

Tomahto Tomehto from my perspective.

Its only going to be intimidation if you are thinking of posting something over the line. I see it as fair warning.

The proof of the rhubarb pudding is that neither CO or myself have to intervene with bans or thread edits and deletions outside of spammers very often now.

Maybe it's an age thing?

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes it did go south from the comment made by Louise, fuelled (as so often) by CO.

The rules state NOTHING about heated discussion

And with hindsite would in not have been better if you had just been the big man and ignored Louise, as so many ignore your sarkier comments?

CO didnt fuel anything, she just pointed out your hypocracy in stating you didnt have a go at the other threads. The "getting into the spirit" thread was hardly a master piece of subtlety. The rules have been pointed out enough to you I would have thought some of them might have sunk in..

challenge others opinions with respect....dont resort to insults , dont start personal attacks yadda yadda yadda... is any of this ringing any bells?

"Heated" is kind of the opposite of that isnt it?

Ok Iain, IF I was the only one who thought CO had a tendency to fuel these 'arguements' I would accept I was wrong. BUT sadly it is a view held by several 'veteran' posters.

And no "heated" is not mutually exclusive of the rules, you can have a "heated" argument without resorting to any of those things, admittedly it does require some intelligence and thought before putting finger to keyboard so perhaps it would be too much to expect from most of us on this forum.

Fair enough, but rest assured, the vast majority of moderator intervention is done off the visible forum. Like the graceful swan, the frantic activity is hidden below the surface, unseen by the casual viewer. Sometimes though PMing doesnt seem the best option.

LOL, Good luck with that!

Why are you focussing on the use of the word heated so much, that wasnt the focus of that post. Take the wider point on board that starting threads about other threads that you could have just ignored is going to provoke exactly the response it did, and thats "upsetting or antagonizing other members".

Perhaps you recognise those words from the rules too.

Are you now going to insult my intelegence by pretending that the "Getting into the spirit" thread was anything but a commentary of sorts on the celeb obituary threads. Let it go.