General Chat

something unacceptable no doubt

I think it was a reply to Island's post. I also wrote "Mrs Kemp" and I think someone has reported me because I mentioned a name. It could have been any Mrs Kemp. Ah well, we will find out in the morning.

I expected a report much earlier in thread - not for anything I had said cos I hope I have been very careful. But clearly a dangerous thread and I think the fact that one post has been reported and other not tells us everything. :-) ;-)

I have reported Island's post. Have no idea why I was reported, but it was simply a reply (a friendly reply) to the post by Island and subsequent two postings.

So, whoever decided to report me did not report the first post in that particular thread. I have obliged.

Have you got too much time on your hands John? ;-) :-D

here we go then - back to the playground!!!

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Island's post John - she merely pointed out that you were a bit late with the 'latest news' :-D

Ann - too true :-D

Words fail :-S :-S :-S

I shall be contacting GR. I didn't see your post John but it would be useful if the person who reported would own up and tell us why they reported you and not me. You reporting my post now is just downright childish.
What is it they say? Not what is said by who said it.

For goodness sake John, tit for tat?????? Have you got bored with things going smoothly? So, you were reported, it probably was because you mentioned a name, why didn't you just leave it, Island's post had nothing reportable in it. :-S

Care to explain this John?
" I think the fact that one post has been reported and other not tells us everything"
Don't be shy now.

I suspect there was a little more in your reported - and removed - post than you are admitting to.

Thank you Ann :-)

as has been said - nothing whatsoever wrong with it - I'm sure it will be reinstated whereas on the other hand yours was removed!!! GR must be getting a little tired with your antics John - we certainly are

Totally agree AnnG.....

My post is back. Now that makes things verrrry inter-esting............

Can I be bothered? Nope! :-D

Island there was no way that your post would be upheld....

Just goes to show :-D :-D ;-)

I would like to know why my post was reported and who it was reported by. Unless Mrs Kemp herself is on this site, I am not sure who else would have had cause to be offended by my comment. I think the reporter was someone who had it in for me personally. I feel sure it was not Island cos that is not her style, however much I irritate her. But I think whoever it was should own up like I did.

Yes, I am pleased also that Island's post has been reinstated. I hoped mine would have been too. But Rachel has said I have crossed the line and has given me a warning, so have to accept that :-( :-(

The point I tried to make in reply to Island was meant to be a jocular way to point out that Downing St would not be shaken and the PM would not be shaken if any of his NOW friends were the ones to have an affair.

Is that an apology John?

No. I felt your post was as worthy of a report as mine. Genes (Rachel) didn't agree with that. So I apologise that I felt I had to report your post to get my warning overturned. But I still feel that your post was naming someone and was out of order.

Can't help it....I have to ask :-( Why are you glad that Island's post was reinstated when you reported it? Why did you report it in the first place? :-S :-S

John it seems to me you are pushing yourself into a corner, but far be it from me to care..... ;-)

I think most of us have learned that John loves a bit of aggro - it seems to give him a buzz.

Best to leave him to it imo, so he can't cause any more trouble.

:-|

John says

" I think the reporter was someone who had it in for me personally"

now who could that be :-S