Teamedup Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 And I have been looking, I really do not seem to be able to find an explanation or even an apology from two personages about postings re business dealings with our now, persona non grata. That the explanation was not forth coming from a responsable shouldn't shock, but it does. The explanation should have been made openly as soon as the mischief was done, never mind letting anyone be led up the garden path. Just my point of view ofcourse, which I realise counts for absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 First of all, TU, it is good to see that you haven't stopped posting.There are several aspects of this matter which deserve an explanation and a public apology, but this is one of the most important ones.We have a moderator who is happy to warn people that their comments are libellous, but we don't seem to have anyone prepared to correct an 'incorrect' posting, which would seem to be in the same category (if you believe the moderator...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I now see that by discussing these matters at all we are in breach of the rules (code of conduct - weasel words) of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I thought that St Amour answered this, rather honourably, actually, but the thread seems to have disappeared. I don't know how an apology is a breach of the forum rules, but I feel I should warn anyone reading this that making any comment at all on the administration of the forum or about the moderators is a breach of the forum rules and will be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 So from what I now gather, the accusations I saw, which were not replied to immediately, and could have been, therefore giving most posters time to see the worst, were eventually replied to. Apologies were even made, just in time for them to be deleted and certainly not left on line long enough for me to be put straight......... and I have been keeping a careful eye on the board recently. ........so how many others saw these replies? Not good enough, not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 TeamedUpPlease remember that making any comment at all on the administration of the forum or aboutthe moderators is a breach of the forum rules and will be deleted, and disciplinary action may be taken against the poster. I would hate to see anyone get in trouble over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 [:)] Yes thankyou, I am rather aware of that. The very idea that I am even skating on thin ice about this appals me. [:D] After all, whether people have agreed or disagreed with me in the past, I have always given straight replies and always to the very best of my knowledge. So I have no intention of p us sy footing around this, and I would like a straight reply. I don't think it should be too much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 [quote user="Teamedup"][:)] [:D] After all, whether people have agreed or disagreed with me in the past, I have always given straight replies and always to the very best of my knowledge. So I have no intention of p us sy footing around this, and I would like a straight reply. I don't think it should be too much to ask. [/quote]You won't get one though TU. I made a posting earlier today, trying to set the record straight but it lasted all of 15 minutes before it was pulled. I'll PM you a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 [quote user="Dick Smith"]I thought that St Amour answered this, rather honourably, ... [/quote]I missed it too. Good to hear of this though. [:D] Now, wasn't someone else involved...[Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaligoBay Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I see. I go out for the day and you all get up to high jinx, upsetting the mods AND skating on thin ice. You could have told me, I'd have joined in! [:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 LOL Saligo you are toute menue compared to me, so I rather think that the would be more of a risk of the ice cracking for me than you. TU, who used to be toute menue a long long time ago in a country far far away (well from where I am in France at least) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnip Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 [quote user="Teamedup"]LOL Saligo you are toute menue compared to me, so I rather think that the would be more of a risk of the ice cracking for me than you. George Orwells hero in his novel entitled "1984" dared to criticise the establishment - and look what happened to him - got more than his posts deleted[:P] TU, who used to be toute menue a long long time ago in a country far far away (well from where I am in France at least)[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Winston Smith didn't criticise the government of Airstrip One, he simply didn't do precisely as he was told, for which he was imprisoned and forced to admit that obviously true things weren't. No connection at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnip Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 [quote user="Dick Smith"]Winston Smith didn't criticise the government of Airstrip One, he simply didn't do precisely as he was told, for which he was imprisoned and forced to admit that obviously true things weren't. No connection at all.[/quote] In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, and both of the others, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone’s behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives Winston his address. Winston had exchanged glances with O'Brien before and had dreams about him giving him the impression that O'Brien was a member of the Brotherhood. Since Julia hated the party as much as Winston did, they went to O'Brien’s house together where they were introduced into the Brotherhood. O'Brien is actually a faithful member of the Inner-Party and this is actually a trap for Winston, a trap that O'Brien has been cleverly setting for seven years. Winston and Julia are sent to the Ministry of Love which is a sort of rehabilitation center for criminals accused of thoughtcrime. There, Winston was separated from Julia, and tortured until his beliefs coincided with those of the Party. Winston denounces everything he believed him, even his love for Julia, and was released back into the public where he wastes his days at the Chestnut Tree drinking gin. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ Hey Mr. Chips - I disagree.However - chill out and don't be so anal[kiss] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I have actually read the book, believe it or not. Britain is represented as Airstrip One. As your pinched precis points out, Winston simply disobeyed the party line and ended up in the Chestnut Tree after admitting that he saw four fingers instead of five. Not whatever your phrase was - criticising the establishment or something.There's no hope for irony in a world of the simply literal...(And knock off the Mister Chips, eh? Especially when you are wrong.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I had this great plan to read the book in 1984, but actually "went early" and read it in 82ish. At the time I thought it was so fanciful.... I mean fancy having something like a webcam in your house which could be permanently online using some like ADSL....An ex Am Dram aquantance was an extra in the film. Quite near the beginning, the camera plans along a row of bland faces and stops on him... he thought he'd been chosen because of his acting ability. We didn't have the heart to tell him that, actually, he is like it in real life (I hope he doesn't read this, I still don't really want to shatter his illusions - I'm pretty confident that he wont[:)] ) I bought the film but still haven't got passed his bit.Now for the real reason for this post... In a stage version which I did sound and AV on last year, Winston gets shot as soon as he "loves" Big Brother.... not as per the ending in the precis. Is that right? (I'm too tired to go into the attic and find the book) (If there any any typos I do apologise, I've read it three times and spotted a different one each time, I have bananas for fingers tonight which is bad enough, but now I am reading what I "think" I've typed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now