Forums

/ Subjects / Mathematics

curlygirly:

jabed:

The apparent fact remains - there was no banning. That is all I am pointing out.

 

So why has weebecka herself referred, 3 times in this thread alone, to her banning ?

curlygirly:

How do you explain her absence for hours, when she's posted pretty continually over the last few weeks

Oh ye G*ds!

I do not explain her absence. That is best done by her. I can  only conjecture. But it may not be that she was banned.  There is no evidence.

"She would've been trying to get on for all that time and failing, because she was, as I was informed in my email, banned"

How do you know that?

That is also conjecture. There is no evidence beyond your word that she was banned.  There is evidence to the contrary however. I accept the evidence. I am more circumspect about hear say.  You have no evidence she did try to get on  to the site any more than I  I have evidence of your e mail.

"We were all able to access TES in the time that she was absent, but she wasn't, she states herself that she was banned, 3 times in the post. But you say she wasn't?"

How do we know that? You have access to her account do you?

 I am not disputing that she may believe she was banned. I am disputing the fact of that banning as when TES ban a poster they will place this statement on that posters profile. There was never such a statement on her profile. I checked it several times over the time after you posted saying she was banned.

Then of course she returned.

I might add she also states that she received no indication that she been banned - she questioned you concerning that a few posts ago. That is evidenced.

I make no statement without absolute certainty. 

It is apparent that the poster is not banned.

It is apparent that you claimed she was banned.

It is apparent that she was absent.

It is apparent she is asking about your information that she was banned.

Anything else I , or you, or anyone else may say is opinion and conjecture and a matter of belief. 

I am  not going to continue this because it is not worth my time and effort. I have my  opinions but I will keep my own counsel on those.

Now can we knock this on the head? Its getting nowhere.

jabed:

Oh so you say you were banned fair enough.

Yes, fair enought that I'd stated the truth even though you continually tried to discredit me.

Fair enough

weebecka:

Also you posted that you'd got me banned curlygirly.

Not true. I posted that you hd been banned and that I had reported a particularly abusive remark that you made towards another poster (not me). i do believe I was not the only poster to do so.

It was not my intention to get you banned, but to report the abusive remark.

weebecka:

I'm delighted they've removed the obscene remark you posted regarding why I was banned Curlygirly but am, as always, exceptionally suprised to see that you received no sanction for your abusive profanity despite my request.

I said you were a ---- because I think you are. It was a one off.

Maybe I shouldn't have said it.

You've said far far worse about me, and your attacks on me started for abolutely no reason, were totally uncalled for and most unpleasant.

I can not speak for the moderators as I do not know them. I suspect that they have not banned me this time because it was a one off and I hope that they recognise that. I am not given to calling people abusive names on the forums.
I suspect that you got a ban because of an increasing number of abusive posts, plus the spamming and hijacking threads, on top of the naming and shaming of HMI and posting private messages on the boards. Also the insinuation you made that you have some posters real identities thanks to the facebook page you set up probably didn't help. Maybe it was the last straw which broke the camels back? I really don't know - you'd have to ask them.

Maybe they will ban me, I'd be disappointed if they did as it was a one off. I almost reported it myself as it was a flippant comment made in error, although your postings leave me in no doubt of the accuracy of the comment, it was indeed, misjudged.

autismuk:

Not unless you ask directly I think.

I did - no response.  I also enquire regarding what kind of behaviour leads to sanctions.

The only replies I ever get say that it is entirely at the discretion of TES.