Site Rules

[retrocop]

Site Editor

When a ABer is happy to divulge information about themselves and family circumstances and they are reminded of such posts in future threads can a extra rule be inserted that the original poster has no comeback if that reminder may cause embarassment due to a new thread where their past is bought back to them. i.e. If I disclose on a public forum that my son has joined the armed forces then I cannot press the report button and complain if another ABer broaches the subject at a later date and I complain of a personal attack.Boy does it happen and it isn't funny because the information that is freely given comes back to bite them and the Aber gets a suspension It is not personal. It refers back to an original thread.

[Baldric]

Tread carefully my friend

[retrocop]

Thanks Balders, Will do. Just get fed up on walking on egg shells. :-)

[Peter Pedant]

It is the reason why one shouldnt use social media
The 'big data' thing - it is not being used to one's own advantage
( Zuckerberg - there is no privacy nowadays)

[altho someone from uni identified me on style alone]

It is generally felt to be Not Done or Bad Form to go back over someone's posts and re-expose and then re-ridicule their most gormless, most stupid or most ignorant posts, no matter how much fun it might be.

[Peter Pedant]

oh god let it all hang out - that's what I say
( Klute - 1973 I think)

[Baldric]

Sometimes it just has to be done, it becomes a way of Life, there are some strange people in positions of power.

[Khandro]

//there are some strange people in positions of power.// You never said a truer word Baldric.

[Baldric]

Thank you Khandro,

[Mamyalynne]

Power? Hecky thunp, I thought we were on about AnswerBank - not a matter of national security.

[Peter Pedant]

God this sounds like the disjointed script in BodyGuard

Macmillan ( PM 1957-62 ) 's wife Dorothy would only er go to bed with Bob Boothby - no, really: the hacks all knew apparently. Which was kinda odd because Bob liked er men better than women.

Denning of the Denning report on profumo 1963 - was chosen not because he was a judge but because the mandarins knew he would concentrate on the sex bit and not on the national security aspect. He did. The report sold out before midday didnt it?

[Baldric]

Do try and keep up Mamya,

[anneasquith]

Don't post personal information in future ?

[Peter Pedant]

oh, Macmillan lost power in 1963 because of his prostatectomy. The public generally believed that if an old man needed a prostate op, it was a sign he was a satyr ( liked kissing young women)
This was kinda odd as he certainly wasnt getting it from Dorothy ( see above ) altho D wasnt exactly young .... she was once I suppose

oh god and that James Brown wasnt exactly normal

[Mamyalynne]

I am well aware what prompted this thread, thank you.

[Peter Pedant]

// Do try and keep up Mamya,//

no baaaaarp! can't use that - - - that is one of Nigh's more moronic catchphrases....

[spathiphyllum]

Bringing up personal information is usually redundant to the thread at hand surely?

IE, if your som joined the armed forces, and you posted about being against the armed forces, for me to bring up your personal fact in ‘debate’ would be pointless, and simply an attempt at a dig on your personal character

Anyway... watch a new programme on channel four called the circle, or have you seen the Truman
Show?

[Baldric]

Well done Spath, not a clue as usual.

[andy-hughes]

Retrocop, Site Rules are there to make the site run smoothly, not to run your peculiar off-topic oddities, so I doubt if this nonsense will be entertained.

[douglas9401]

Good grief! What have I missed now?

[1ozzy]

The bus driver did it.
Honest Guv.