ifm wrote:

Ginge wrote:Is my statement factually incorrect?

As for some of the other ones, yes they clearly infer it. But not everyone in a picture with a paedo is a paedo themselves, that is just plain silly.

So just for the record you are saying that in your opinion there was never any intent to infer that ssja was a paedo, it is completely unreasonable to think that that was the intention.

Ginge wrote:

ifm wrote:

Ginge wrote:Is my statement factually incorrect?

As for some of the other ones, yes they clearly infer it. But not everyone in a picture with a paedo is a paedo themselves, that is just plain silly.

So just for the record you are saying that in your opinion there was never any intent to infer that ssja was a paedo, it is completely unreasonable to think that that was the intention.

Im merely saying not everyone in a picture with a paedo is a paedo themselves. The rest is your imagination running riot.

Hope this helps.

nikkiboy wrote:

Ginge wrote:

ifm wrote:

Ginge wrote:Is my statement factually incorrect?

As for some of the other ones, yes they clearly infer it. But not everyone in a picture with a paedo is a paedo themselves, that is just plain silly.

So just for the record you are saying that in your opinion there was never any intent to infer that ssja was a paedo, it is completely unreasonable to think that that was the intention.

Im merely saying not everyone in a picture with a paedo is a paedo themselves. The rest is your imagination running riot.

Hope this helps.

How about the one with Saville I think and a sign that says 'watch kids' with a mod's head photoshopped in the pic say 'oh OK'

Is that not inferrence enough?

Booji Boy wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Tsod needs my steady hand at the tiller.

Incapable of anything technical but as a leader of men I can be counted on.

Not a bad shout actually, If you were to take it seriously.

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Thanks Col. I would apply the rules that have been in place for years in a fair manner. Common sense is a great tool.

Garry Murphy wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Thanks Col. I would apply the rules that have been in place for years in a fair manner. Common sense is a great tool.

although the fairest admin i have ever come across on darts forums in never messing with accounts, you are too tall to be an admin of a darts forum which are usually midgets

nikkiboy wrote:

Garry Murphy wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Thanks Col. I would apply the rules that have been in place for years in a fair manner. Common sense is a great tool.

although the fairest admin i have ever come across on darts forums in never messing with accounts, you are too tall to be an admin of a darts forum which are usually midgets

We prefer the term 'little people'

Garry Murphy wrote:

nikkiboy wrote:

Garry Murphy wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Thanks Col. I would apply the rules that have been in place for years in a fair manner. Common sense is a great tool.

although the fairest admin i have ever come across on darts forums in never messing with accounts, you are too tall to be an admin of a darts forum which are usually midgets

We prefer the term 'little people'

welcome to Lilliput

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Sorry lads but when am I likely to hear if my application has been successful?

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Is that a yes?

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Is that a yes?

devosteve wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Is that a yes?

You have been black balled! I wonder which mod did that?

devosteve wrote:

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:Is that a yes?

You have been black balled! I wonder which mod did that?

Moongoose McQueeen wrote:If that's a no then fair enough. I would have done it seriously and followed whatever guidelines you have in place. Wish you guys all the best in your search for another mod.