cowboy wrote:

You can try and play this game here but I shall take the time now to wish you the best of fucking luck before proceeding

That ships sailing, you're on it.

cowboy wrote:

And just what is it exactly that you have a problem with?

The above is just gibberish.

oioioi wrote:
Captain friggin obvious wasn't it lol

@cowboy

Again you are right, web forum owners can and do arbitrarily change rules. That does not mean I have to like it or agree to the new rules. I also did exactly as suggested and registered to a new forum which I felt more comfortable and trusting towards.

I am not entirely sure what the point is with your argument. Am I not supposed to voice my opinion on the matter? Do you feel that I should not feel aggrieved by what transpired? Do you feel that forums such as these that began as a group of people dissatisfied with what transpired elsewhere on the web but evolved into something much more should not exist?

Why do my objections in your view hold no moral standpoint?

what am I missing?

He got his poppadom and logged off.

oioioi wrote:

oioioi wrote:
well that went gatwick!!

oioioi wrote:

Here is your assertion:

"What forums offer is a form of contract, if you agree to and abide by preset terms and conditions you are given membership and the ability to participate through posting, private messaging and chat if those are part of the forum. My main gripe with ickes as an example was that the rules and conditions on which i signed up to and agreed to were retrospectively changed..."

I corrected you and pointed out that you do not have a "contract." You have an agreement, or rather, an "understanding." The agreement is simply that the website owner will allow you to use THEIR website as long as they wish. Or not at all. Or under a specific set of circumstances, at their complete discretion.

You claimed (or implied, in a rather wishy washy manner: "form of"), incorrectly so, that a website's terms and conditions are a binding contract, enforceable by law. This is just not so, and never has been.

You are using, or sharing, a website that is privately owned, at their sole discretion. You can be asked to leave "at their will." Just as you can be hired or fired "at wil" by an employer of a private company. Just like you can "use" someone else's house solely at the discretion of the homeowner.

I objected to your use of the term "contract" as an indication of what a website's terms and conditions are. Terms and conditions are not a "contract" at all. They are simply a more or less elaborate set of instructions to tell you one thing: "I own the website and you don't, therefore I will allow you to use it at my discretion (or not at all)."

To summarize, no one has any RIGHT to post on DIF. David Icke, nor any members of the administration or moderation team have done anything "wrong" by banning or inactivating members or by deleting posts. If anyone thinks that David Icke or Sean Adl or any of the DIF moderators have a "moral" or "legal" or "contractual" obligation to let them post on that site, you are sadly mistaken.
thoreau wrote:

So you've come on a forum set up by people kicked off a forum to tell them if they don't like being kicked off a forum to set up a forum.

And you were on TZ previously.

And you still can't see how ridiculous a statement it is you're fumbling to make.

@cowboy

fair enough - 'form of contract' seemed to adequately describe what i meant but I accept you feel differently. I used form of in recognition that whilst it was an 'agreement' or 'promise' by which two parties 'agree' or 'promise' something and a breach could occur, such an agreement is not recognized as far as I am aware in law.

As regards ickes not only are forum members informed that they must abide by certain conditions but they also have a set of 'promises' that they will uphold on their end.

So we have established and agreed that any legal standpoint is missing. Morally however, we are as yet to discuss.

And he's gone again.

cowboy wrote:

I'm mistaken about nowt as the only thought I have when it comes to Icke and in particularly, sean, are the words wanker and cunt.

psketti wrote:
No one can accuse you of sitting on the fence sketts

The moral principle is clear: the owner of a property can use, share, dispense of their property, as they wish, absolutely, as long as they do not infringe upon YOUR right to use YOUR property, as you wish. The non-owner has no say whatsoever. That's the principle of ownership. If someone tells you you can use their lawnmower for a week but they come back 2 days later and reclaim it, they have done nothing wrong. They have not violated a moral principle. They are the owner, and they can use, share, or dispense of their property at their complete discretion.

You, as non-owner, have no say whatsoever in these matters. Don't like it? Buy your own lawnmower.

You have no legal right nor moral basis for complaining about DIF, it's moderators, it's administration, it's change of terms and conditions, it's process for accepting or banning members, or for accepting or deleting posts. It is totally at their discretion. You have no say so in the matter, unless the owner grants it.

You can complain as much as you wish about the owners administrators and moderators, but you have no legal or moral basis for doing so. It is in effect, a complete waste of your time. But to each his own.
thoreau wrote:

thoreau wrote:


Meh

cowboy wrote:

Fuck me you're boring as hell.