THE MAJOR'S MAN IN THE FIELD
So the Major had been posting stuff on the Forum from an anonymous correspondent whom he labelled 'my man in the field' (#8348 of Incontrovertible).
For all anyone knew, 'FDC' was a member who was banned from the Forum, using the Major to sidestep the ban. Indeed, for all anyone knew, FDC could have been me feeding the Major completely duff information. Because it seems like whatever you tell the Major he believes it, and FDC's 'information' was certainly duff stuff.
It took some time for the rule in respect of posting on behalf of non-members to be clarified.
The below entries relate to this issue.
THE STUPIDITY OF THE CLANGER
In #8379, the Clanger asked RJ Palmer, 'What is it you have against CB members passing on the opinions of 'unregistered sidekicks'?' The silly sarcasm seemed to go over the Major's head so the Clanger had to explain it in #8383 by saying:
'I just thought it was amusing that RJ should look down at the nose of the 'unregistered' after alerting us to the excellent (though belated) research of his great 'unregistered' pal.'
This is another example of the Clanger's inability to construct a rational argument and his love of false comparisons.
RJ Palmer had posted a link to an article on this website. That is expressly allowed under Forum rules as articulated by Chief Censor Menges. It would certainly be odd if links to external websites were banned.
But that's not what the Major did in respect of FDC. The Major posted himself on behalf of an unregistered and cowardly person, directly reproducing a message from that person.
This means that neither RJ nor anyone else could engage with that member or ask direct questions of them, other than through the Major.
Furthermore, it was impossible to know if FDC was a banned or resigned member of the Forum trying to get around the rules about banned and resigned members posting in the Forum.
So while the Clanger rounded off his post by saying, 'Another gift for us all', in reality the gift was just another predictable Clanger own goal.
THE MAJOR'S DEFENCE
The Major's defence of his 'FDC' posts when it came, in #8387 of the Incontrovertible thread, was laughable.
'We had this debate a long, long time ago. How do we know that you really are someone called 'Roger J Palmer'? It's as transparent as 'Iconoclast' or an unregistered 'FDC''
But it's not just about identity. It's about being registered to post on an internet Forum. That's how it works. That's what gives a person the right to post in the first place, placing them under the jurisdiction of the moderator(s) and rules of the Forum.
The Major also said:
'I don't feel responsible for the comments (as long as there's nothing slanderous or vitriolic) so I post them and move on. I think FDC has a huge amount to add to the debate but he doesn't want to register - and I think we can all now sense why he wouldn't. Not everyone has balls of ******* steel like I.'
'If Admin ever tells me to desist then obviously I will desist.'
CHIEF CENSOR DOESN'T KNOW FORUM RULES
So, following the Major's post, Chief Censor Menges posted in #8388 to say:
'Generally speaking we’ve allowed members to post for non-members (as I have for Keith Skinner) as long as that non-member isn’t a banned member. If a non-member engages in personal attacks then the member who posted the attack would obviously suffer the penalty. But RJ makes a good point that I appreciate. So I’m bringing the issue up with admin.'
He didn't even know the fucking rules that he was supposed to be policing. What a shambles!
He certainly knew what the rules were about quoting Lord Orsam! Because he'd invented them! But he didn't know what the rules were about quoting someone else who wasn't a member of the Forum.
THE STATUS OF KEITH SKINNER
We've seen that the Chief Censor wrote:
'Generally speaking we've allowed members to post for non-members (as I have for Keith Skinner)...'
But is Keith Skinner a non-member? I don't have access to the current list of members but my clear memory is that Keith registered as a member for the Forum and was perfectly able to post. In fact, he told us that he started to type a long introductory post but it disappeared due to him being timed out and he was so frustrated and annoyed by this that he never attempted to post again.
If he's still a member, the Chief Censor is wrong to say that in posting for Keith Skinner he did so for a 'non-member'.
But if he's correct and Keith is not a member of the Forum, what is the consequence now that Admin has decided that posting for non-members is forbidden? Will the Chief Censor have to punish himself?
I do hope so.
GOODBYE FDC, R.I.P.
Ha ha ha!
I suppose it's just as well that FDC was utterly useless because his short reign of cowardly anonymous and ill-informed posting came to an abrupt to an end.
Per Admin, #8389 of the Incontrovertible thread:
Getting a specific answer to a specific question from a Non-member (who is not banned) on a subject is permissible. Posting multiple response/reaction/opining from any random is not.
No further proxy posting for non-members.
Goodbye FDC, you won't be missed, but, hey, ever thought of growing a backbone so you can post in your own username?
NO EXCUSE SKINNER
With a number of questions pending for Keith Skinner, in light of Crazy Ally's ruling, he now has no legitimate excuse for not answering them, either in his own account or via the Major.
Get on with it, man.
Published Orsam Day: 9 March 2022