About ABOUT "About RR NOT Harry Wales"

[Always_a_Civvy]

Even the odd never served civilian Walter Mitty trawling for hairy men, not that the press can tell the difference. It is indeed the COs' train set and they can delete anywhere and everywhere. Thanks for understanding WB.

While most posters will be careful, it only takes one misinformed, well informed or mischevious cock to post and cause major naus. Please complain to the COs if you don't like their policy.

Excuse me Seadog... I'm a reformed, lapsed Walt. Or are you suggesting that I'm not a pure, dyed in the wooley woofter, 100% lifelong civvy! 8O 8O 8O

 

[wet_blobby]

some people just cant feckin let go eh?

 

[PartTimePongo]

Ok, as Seadog isn't here I'll say it.

I was about to send you a PM AAC , but I see you decided to spam the boards instead, so I'll speak in the open.

There is a notice up, requesting no discussion regarding the upcoming deployment of a British Officer.

We don't allow discussion of deployments of individuals in any event, the reasons would be obvious to anyone who has served/is serving, never mind assorted journalists and less friendly individuals circling like carrion crows.

Your decision to blatantly spam the forums, in a crude attempt to garner support, instead of dealing direct with Seadog via PM's or seeking redress via the CO's , I regard as unproductive, petty and childish.

A repeat of this behaviour, will force me to seek your suspension from RR.

PTP

 

[slim]

PTP
Please read what AAC has written. He is replying to remarks made against him by Seadog. His posts have got absolutely nothing to do with the British officer you refer to.
Seadog took an extremely juvenile attitude to AAC.

 

[PartTimePongo]

Slim,

Whilst I do fully understand the point you are making, AAC has demonstrated a fairly juvenile attitude himself, both in this latest episode and in previous posts.

This could have been dealt with via PM's , or by seeking redress from the CO's. Instead AAC made a crude attempt to garner support for his standpoint.

I can't comment on the relationship between Seadog and AAC to date right now, as it means reading back through all the threads where they are involved, and Friday night is for drinking.

However, I can't allow a situation to develop where it slides into a challenge to Seadog's moderation, or criticism of his actions, with Seadog not available to answer.

Regards

PTP

 

[slim]

Slim,

Whilst I do fully understand the point you are making, AAC has demonstrated a fairly juvenile attitude himself, both in this latest episode and in previous posts.

This could have been dealt with via PM's , or by seeking redress from the CO's. Instead AAC made a crude attempt to garner support for his standpoint.

I can't comment on the relationship between Seadog and AAC to date right now, as it means reading back through all the threads where they are involved, and Friday night is for drinking.

However, I can't allow a situation to develop where it slides into a challenge to Seadog's moderation, or criticism of his actions, with Seadog not available to answer.

Regards

PTP

As a Moderator you should take the time to discover why AAC replied in the manner he did. You seem to be taking a rather one sided view of this which is not really the way Moderation works.

 

[andym]

I think the Quote by Seadog,obviously aimed at AAC was well out of order!If one of us mere mortals had posted such it would have been stricken from the record.Seems Mr Seadog has one rule ofr himself and another for others.Theres no cause to be rude or offensive,banter is justified but this goes beyond that.

 

[wet_blobby]

I think the Quote by Seadog,obviously aimed at AAC was well out of order!If one of us mere mortals had posted such it would have been stricken from the record.Seems Mr Seadog has one rule ofr himself and another for others.Theres no cause to be rude or offensive,banter is justified but this goes beyond that.

I'm gonna sound like teachers pet here but.........I have been "advised" on more than one occasion to tolarate my banter with AAC by seadog.

 

[higthepig]

Explain your Statement that you have been advised? this is CA is it of importance? or will my voice be banned?

 

[wet_blobby]

I've been told off for overstepping the mark with some of my replies to the banter with AAC...wow...I'm sure I'm not gonna have a paddy over it.

This whole situation goes back to the Harry in Iraq question, AAc is picking a fight because one of his posts got culled, so feckin what? I am not the MODs favourite poster or there biggest fan but I think they are right in this instance. How many peolple reading this has actually eyeballed a target recently...let alone within the last 15 -20 years?...Arrsers bimbling over for a looksee stand fast....

well, not many then...so what gives all RR's the right to give the media uneducated quotes about whether HRH should serve in a combat zone or not?

The media feed on bollox, lets not give them a banquet....if you want to fall out with Mods then digout, I'm sure they'll give you a run for yer money, just dont link it with bods who may or may not be going in harms way.

 

[type42stoker]

The media feed on bollox, lets not give them a banquet....if you want to fall out with Mods then digout, I'm sure they'll give you a run for yer money, just dont link it with bods who may or may not be going in harms way.

Quite. I remember that some newspapers in the 80s printed details of why Argentine bombs weren't exploding when they hit our ships (long fuse, short drop), so what did the Argentinians do, they adjusted the fuses with devastating effect to HMS Coventry. Cheers to those in the press that didn't think, and to those who leaked the information from inside. My kit got very wet thanks to you [email protected]! :x

 

[TF110]

How would we feel if we publicly discussed joe blogs upcoming deployment in intimate detail? I think Bloggs would be rightly hacked off at possible OPSEC/PERSEC breaches.

At the end of the day, Cornet Wales is a member of the British Army and entitled to the same anonymity and protection as the rest of us on these forums. I completely agree we should lock any thread pertaining to him.

 

[aussiepint]

How would we feel if we publicly discussed joe blogs upcoming deployment in intimate detail? I think Bloggs would be rightly hacked off at possible OPSEC/PERSEC breaches.

At the end of the day, Cornet Wales is a member of the British Army and entitled to the same anonymity and protection as the rest of us on these forums. I completely agree we should lock any thread pertaining to him.

Yep and then we can all switch over to Sky.com.news......

 

[wet_blobby]

and listen to quotes from "various unofficial military websites"

 

[alhucoll]

Discussing individuals deployments etc has always been an un-official rule for quite obvious reasons - OPSEC/PERSEC.

We at RR should continue along that stance, as ARRSE does. We are un-official forces websites with many current serving men and women, many ex-service men and women and civilians. Our comments are now being regularly quoted by the media and could/have been mis-used already.

It is common courtesey and common sense to me:
Yes, information is available through the media and easy to come by. Do we lower ourselves to their standards?

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

Ok, as Seadog isn't here I'll say it.

I was about to send you a PM AAC , but I see you decided to spam the boards instead, so I'll speak in the open.

There is a notice up, requesting no discussion regarding the upcoming deployment of a British Officer.

We don't allow discussion of deployments of individuals in any event, the reasons would be obvious to anyone who has served/is serving, never mind assorted journalists and less friendly individuals circling like carrion crows.

Your decision to blatantly spam the forums, in a crude attempt to garner support, instead of dealing direct with Seadog via PM's or seeking redress via the CO's , I regard as unproductive, petty and childish.

A repeat of this behaviour, will force me to seek your suspension from RR.

PTP

Dear me, talk about misreading my original post!!! :roll: 8O 8O 8O

Actually PTP, I had no intention of reopening the thread on Prince Harry, whose antics frankly (as a republican) are of no interest to me whatsoever! I am not seeking sympathy either - having walted in the past I should expect none because what I did was unacceptable behaviour. Nor am I picking a fight with Seadog! I also contest the accusation of spamming. I posted a duplicate of this thread in the Gash bin just in case Seadog deleted it without responding to it. Had he deleted his original post then the matter would have been closed or had he not locked the post, preventing me from replying. However he left me with no choice. A PM would still have resulted in the post being on the thread which required a response! I used the original thread title because I wanted to make clear that it was this post to which I objected.

However, I can't allow a situation to develop where it slides into a challenge to Seadog's moderation, or criticism of his actions...

I wasn't challenging either his moderation nor criticizing his actions. As a Moderator he is entitled to do what he and the Board of Mods think appropriate. Nor do I have any objection to him deleting inappropriate posts by me in Current Affairs. That OK with me. My objection is solely on this matter. If the offending sentence is removed then I'd be quite happy to have this thread and my one in the Gash barge deleted too.

I have no objection whatsoever about my past, shameful, deed as Nozzy Nozzer/Seacat being reworked - I expected that anyway. My objection is solely to the imputation that as AAC I am still a walt! I have stated, as my user name re-emphasizes, that I have always been a civvy - a lifelong non-warrior.

I apologise now if I have caused any offence to you and Seadog - this was unintended.

AAC/Steve.

 

[UncleAlbert]

……thought I could smell donkey shit

Welcome back Steve

 

[aussiepint]

FFS!! 'undercover under the covers' Elton John! AAC??? Sorry proud gay man??? Seadog, Mod with lethel delete finger?? Yep will try and stay out of it, but really guys, both of you are not shown any male attractive signs yet..??? Brace, brace, brace.. et al?? PM is a good tool isn't it???

 

[Always_a_Civvy]

FFS!! 'undercover under the covers' Elton John! AAC??? Sorry proud gay man??? Seadog, Mod with lethel delete finger?? Yep will try and stay out of it, but really guys, both of you are not shown any male attractive signs yet..??? Brace, brace, brace.. et al?? PM is a good tool isn't it???

Male? That only applies to Seadog! 8O

With hindsight I could have PM'd Seadog, but felt that a simple refutation online was more appropriate. Poor judgment - well nothing new there then! :roll: Maybe I was wrong to do this? The real problem here Pinta is one of misinterpretation and reading more into what I wrote than I ever intended. :cry:

 

[slim]

FFS!! 'undercover under the covers' Elton John! AAC??? Sorry proud gay man??? Seadog, Mod with lethel delete finger?? Yep will try and stay out of it, but really guys, both of you are not shown any male attractive signs yet..??? Brace, brace, brace.. et al?? PM is a good tool isn't it???

Male? That only applies to Seadog! 8O

With hindsight I could have PM'd Seadog, but felt that a simple refutation online was more appropriate. Poor judgment - well nothing new there then! :roll: Maybe I was wrong to do this? The real problem here Pinta is one of misinterpretation and reading more into what I wrote than I ever intended. :cry:

Steve
I couldn't see any problems with the reply you posted to Seadogs. It was polite, which was more than could be said for the post to which caused you to reply.