Social media boycott views?

[Greavsy 2,415]

6 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Moral high ground?

You've publicly attacked my Father's character on this forum. I'm still waiting for you to offer some substance, justification for your comments or to apologise. It's a thread about abuse and you threw some. That's what this is about no matter how much you try and deflect from taking responsibility with the "Quick!! Look over there!!" tactics. On a thread discussing a social media boycott due to people receiving anonymous abuse, you've chosen to use social media to dish out anonymous abuse. That's it. 

As I've often told you before, if you want my Father to answer questions, ask him. I'm not sure he's "conspicuous by his absence" either, I'd completely understand if he didn't wish to interact any further on a thread where somebody hiding behind their anonymity has abused him and his character. 

Your assertion that it was "never going to end well" interests me too. I guess it comes down to the ability to maintain some sort of level of decorum and not resorting to insulting people? 

Anyway, I've no real wish to discuss Morty, he was responsible for what he posted and got banned. 🤷‍♂️

 

no distraction tactics here, just pointing out that whilst you see fit to defend your father from perceived online abuse, but it was ok for you to not defend others when your mate was giving it out by the bucket load - which was as anonymous as I am on here! yet again contradictions. 

I'm glad that question interests you - as it does me too - hence why i posted it. Why after ignoring me for 18 months, and everyone playing nicely did he decide to personally interact ? It absolutely does some down to a level of decorum, I agree, but that applies to all surely?  

Morty was responsible for his ban? I thought that was solely down to me! 😉  

How long do you wish to keep going in circles? I'm quite happy to agree to disagee, and respect you are entitled to your views, as every one else is, of course. I'm sure you will twist that comment & claim that me trying to get out of it, which i'm not, i'm just sure this is of little interest to anyone else. 

   

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

11 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

no distraction tactics here, just pointing out that whilst you see fit to defend your father from perceived online abuse, but it was ok for you to not defend others when your mate was giving it out by the bucket load - which was as anonymous as I am on here! yet again contradictions. 

I'm glad that question interests you - as it does me too - hence why i posted it. Why after ignoring me for 18 months, and everyone playing nicely did he decide to personally interact ? It absolutely does some down to a level of decorum, I agree, but that applies to all surely?  

Morty was responsible for his ban? I thought that was solely down to me! 😉  

How long do you wish to keep going in circles? I'm quite happy to agree to disagee, and respect you are entitled to your views, as every one else is, of course. I'm sure you will twist that comment & claim that me trying to get out of it, which i'm not, i'm just sure this is of little interest to anyone else. 

   

It is distraction tactics. That's precisely what it is. Morty has been banned from here for, I'd guess, five years? It has no relevance to this discussion, unless you wish to discuss whether his ban should represent a precedent?

This discussion is about you and the abuse you dished out, anonymously, on social media on a thread you started regarding anonymous abuse on social media. You claim it's circular and that it is of little interest to others but it never needed to drag on, did it?

You called Nutty's character into question and chose to attack him regarding a subject that you KNOW is extremely important to him. Why you chose to do that still isn't clear. Why you were able to do it is. Because he isn't anonymous; he is contactable, people know where to find him, meet him face to face and because he tries to do something for good reasons, people - like you - know a little bit about him. It's ok for you, you're just Greavsy, there's no comeback, nobody knows anything that you hold dear to vindictively and maliciously attack you. 

I asked you to retract your comments, I explained why you should. You don't know him. You've chosen not to, doubled down on them by stating that it's your opinion and so that's ok is it? It's not, it was abusive, offensive and downright nasty. It was an example of the very reason that this thread ever existed. 

So no, I'm not about to let you weasel your way out of it and no, the fact that I'm friends with someone that might have called you a bell-end half a decade ago isn't justification for your actions either. 

The saddest part of all is that you still can't even see what was wrong with your post. You're still calling it "perceived abuse". 

Let's put the boot on the other foot. Let's say you were a Cub Scout Master, something that you did voluntarily because you liked to give something back. Then up pops someone you don't know called "Saint" and says that the only reason you do it is because you're a paedophile. It's not true, but it's their opinion. Presumably you'd be ok with that too? Of course you wouldn't. Because it's a vile attack on your character without justification from someone that has never met you but has formed an opinion based on some posts on an internet forum. 

Yes, that is an extreme comparison but I'm just trying to make you see what was wrong with what you posted.

All you had to do was retract, admit that you were wrong and apologise. It's you that provided the abuse, it's you that's dragging it out. 

Again, enjoy your weekend. 

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

Dunc - you are yet again missing the point. 

I repeat a forced apology - is meaning less. However whilst I stand by my comments, I apologize for any upset they have caused.  

Lets leave it there ? 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Dunc - you are yet again missing the point. 

I repeat a forced apology - is meaning less. However whilst I stand by my comments, I apologize for any upset they have caused.  

Lets leave it there ? 

"I'm sorry you feel that I should apologise"

Cheers. You are Priti Patel and I claim my £5.

I'm not missing anything, least of all what the fact that you stand by your comments tells everyone reading this thread. 

Again, for the record, these are the comments that you stand by:

You are nothing more that a self opinionated shoite stirrer, who hides his true persona behind the charity fund raising you do. I've seen through you from day one.  I never trust a fund raiser who bangs on about it all the time. I think is shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and more about them that the fund raising objective. 

Indefensible, disgusting, nasty, vindictive, malicious, hateful comments. Those are the one's you're standing by? 

Wow. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

On 28/04/2021 at 21:32, nutty nigel said:

I think you're quite mad Greavsy.

BTW is is acceptable for someone to post comments like this, on a thread about MH, about someone they have never met, whose MH status they know nothing about? 

I guess its about where people draw lines of acceptability? 

WOW indeed. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

BTW is is acceptable for someone to post comments like this, on a thread about MH, about someone they have never met, whose MH status they know nothing about? 

I guess its about where people draw lines of acceptability? 

WOW indeed. 

I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions. The entire exchange and the context is there to be viewed, well almost all, the posts where you called him a t w a t and said "You are nothing more that a self opinionated shoite stirrer, who hides his true persona behind the charity fund raising you do. I've seen through you from day one.  I never trust a fund raiser who bangs on about it all the time. I think is shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and more about them that the fund raising objective." have been removed. 

I guess somebody has already drawn those lines and acted upon them. 

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

3 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

"I'm sorry you feel that I should apologise"

Cheers. You are Priti Patel and I claim my £5.

I'm not missing anything, least of all what the fact that you stand by your comments tells everyone reading this thread. 

Again, for the record, these are the comments that you stand by:

You are nothing more that a self opinionated shoite stirrer, who hides his true persona behind the charity fund raising you do. I've seen through you from day one.  I never trust a fund raiser who bangs on about it all the time. I think is shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and more about them that the fund raising objective. 

Indefensible, disgusting, nasty, vindictive, malicious, hateful comments. Those are the one's you're standing by? 

Wow. 

Not missing anything - Apart from firstly where were you when others were being attacked by your mate!?  

Yes, as you have said he was responsible for his post, as I am mine, and you yours, but how much people on the receiving end would have enjoyed the level of support you are giving your father. I doubt you would even have posted on this thread if it wasn't for the family connection. 

Maybe I should / could have worded it different / better, but I didn't, and there it is.

im sure you'll keep bring it up for months to come, and quoting it at every opportunity. So (as you perceive me as in the wrong) two wrongs make it absolutely right don't they, as you keep hounding me for an apology  "its the old you're entitled to your opinion, as long as you agree with me" argument. 

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

7 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions. The entire exchange and the context is there to be viewed, well almost all, the posts where you called him a t w a t and said "You are nothing more that a self opinionated shoite stirrer, who hides his true persona behind the charity fund raising you do. I've seen through you from day one.  I never trust a fund raiser who bangs on about it all the time. I think is shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and more about them that the fund raising objective." have been removed. 

I guess somebody has already drawn those lines and acted upon them. 

 

Shall we move on ? As ive said - I apologize for any upset my comments have caused.  

For the record - I didn't remove them. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Greavsy

[Foxy2600 301]

It's funny, whenever a newbie has the audacity to start a thread with something a little controversial, it's met with a cacophony of 'Binner' comments - me included.  When does banter stop being funny and starts being hurtful? As we all on here have a degree of anonymity, we, as human beings, feel it's a victimless crime. There isn't actually a person out there called 'Clusterf@ck Canary' is there? 

This thread however, has descended into a personal slanging match - which no-one will actually understand how it got to this point and for the spectator, it will probably invoke a move for self-censoring. 

The whole thread is non-Football for me now.......and there are plenty of idiots to play with in there.

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 minute ago, Foxy2600 said:

It's funny, whenever a newbie has the audacity to start a thread with something a little controversial, it's met with a cacophony of 'Binner' comments - me included.  When does banter stop being funny and starts being hurtful? As we all on here have a degree of anonymity, we, as human beings, feel it's a victimless crime. There isn't actually a person out there called 'Clusterf@ck Canary' is there? 

This thread however, has descended into a personal slanging match - which no-one will actually understand how it got to this point and for the spectator, it will probably invoke a move for self-censoring. 

The whole thread is non-Football for me now.......and there are plenty of idiots to play with in there.

Agreed - its all about drawing lines, and as Ive said before what is banter / acceptable for some crossed the line for others. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Not missing anything - Apart from firstly where were you when others were being attacked by your mate!?  

Yes, as you have said he was responsible for his post, as I am mine, and you yours, but how much people on the receiving end would have enjoyed the level of support you are giving your father. I doubt you would even have posted on this thread if it wasn't for the family connection. 

Maybe I should / could have worded it different / better, but I didn't, and there it is.

im sure you'll keep bring it up for months to come, and quoting it at every opportunity. So (as you perceive me as in the wrong) two wrongs make it absolutely right don't they, as you keep hounding me for an apology  "its the old you're entitled to your opinion, as long as you agree with me" argument. 

 

It isn't though is it? 

It's you have insulted and attacked the character of someone you don't know with no justification or any semblance of evidence to support your "opinion". Numerous people have come onto this thread and testified that you are completely wrong in your assertions. 

Could you have worded it better? Certainly. Should you have worded it better? No. What you should have done is stuck to what you know, and not vindictively targeted a part of somebody's life that you know is important to them to cause offence. It was deliberate. You know Rays Funds is important to him, you knew it would cause offence, your aim was to upset him. What you should have done is not post it all. 

Again, what Morty did, he paid for. I'm not the forum police and I can't jump to everyone's defence, to be honest once Morty and Lakey used to start I didn't used to bother much with the threads. Would I have posted on this thread if it wasn't for the family connection? Seriously? You've attacked the poster that I am best placed to defend, because I know them better than anybody else that posts on the board, I guess that entitles me to take you to task. I wouldn't be in that position if you slagged off any other poster, would I? 

I've no wish to bring anything up for months, indeed if you had anything about you, you'd have simply made a retraction and apologised and I wouldn't even be bringing it up now, would I?

But no, you've doubled and now trebled down on this:

You are nothing more that a self opinionated shoite stirrer, who hides his true persona behind the charity fund raising you do. I've seen through you from day one.  I never trust a fund raiser who bangs on about it all the time. I think is shows they are doing it for the wrong reasons, and more about them that the fund raising objective. 

There's just no need, Greavsy. How can you possibly defend those comments? 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

11 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Shall we move on ? As ive said - I apologize for any upset my comments have caused.  

For the record - I didn't remove them. 

I didn't think for a second that you had. 

As I said, it's clear that somebody drew some lines and acted upon them. It's not cryptic. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

Circles.

Have a good weekend. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

6 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Circles.

Have a good weekend. 

You're still in the wrong and everyone can see it. Apart from you. 

Have an awesome weekend.

[Foxy2600 301]

Back on thread though, anything that stops Lineaker, [who eat all the] Pies Morgan and Lily Allen form spouting bile for 4 days is a godsend......Oh, 'the ban' only applies to sportspeople? Figures!

[Greavsy 2,415]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

You're still in the wrong and everyone can see it. Apart from you. 

Have an awesome weekend.

Circles 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

So, the boycott has started.

I wasn't sure whether to do it or not as I doubt my views would make much of a difference, but if everyone has that mentality nothing would change. I generally waste a lot of time on Facebook, so it will be interesting to go without for the best part of four days.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Abusers will still be there on Monday morning.

[Greavsy 2,415]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Abusers will still be there on Monday morning.

Boycott ends Monday night KGD. 

The boycott will take place from 3pm on Friday, April 30, through to 11.59pm on Monday, May 3.

[Duncan Edwards 2,236]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Boycott ends Monday night KGD. 

The boycott will take place from 3pm on Friday, April 30, through to 11.59pm on Monday, May 3.

Correct. You'll still be here Tuesday morning. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Correct. You'll still be here Tuesday morning. 

Possibly all weekend too. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Greavsy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Boycott ends Monday night KGD. 

The boycott will take place from 3pm on Friday, April 30, through to 11.59pm on Monday, May 3.

Sorry. Apart from this, I don't use another platform so I didn't take much notice of how long the boycott was for.

If its to force the owners to find ways of stopping abuse because a boycott will upset the advertisers then maybe it might work.

But such is the ego of so many, I do not see a boycott rivalling the length of the Miners strike for instance.

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

Having read through the whole of this thread the twonks who thought it would be a good idea to invent something called ' social media ' must have said to each other so many times since, " Why the **** did we bother ? "

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by ......and Smith must score.

[Greavsy 2,415]

https://twitter.com/TalkNorwichCity/status/1388114570619854850?s=19

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 28/04/2021 at 21:09, nutty nigel said:

I can see no positives for a pink un boycott. Just negatives. Infact I don't think it has anything to do with the pink un.

I shall also be using Facebook as usual.

 

 

Me, too Nutty. All this is just a gesture, and a way of avoiding actually doing something about online abuse. If anyone really wanted to fix the problem they would be calling for solutions, such as ending the anonymity of posting on social media. We would see a dramatic fall in online abuse if individual identities were known, though of course there are idiots who post come what may. But there would be an accompanying fall in the usage of social media, so the corporations would never voluntarily accept such a move. It would take legislation.

[KeiranShikari 1,410]

56 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

https://twitter.com/TalkNorwichCity/status/1388114570619854850?s=19

Wonder what they'd have done if we weren't winning the title this weekend.

[Herman 9,765]

Proof that these companies can get rid of the hatemongers and still turn a profit.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-2021-revenue-spiked-28-211207334.html

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,820]

13 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Me, too Nutty. All this is just a gesture, and a way of avoiding actually doing something about online abuse. If anyone really wanted to fix the problem they would be calling for solutions, such as ending the anonymity of posting on social media. We would see a dramatic fall in online abuse if individual identities were known, though of course there are idiots who post come what may. But there would be an accompanying fall in the usage of social media, so the corporations would never voluntarily accept such a move. It would take legislation.

I agree with the second half about it needing legislation, as the social media companies are unlikely to police themselves if it reduces their traffic.

However, people have been calling for solutions for a while, the most common of which is the one you suggested, but these have fallen on deaf ears. This is why they're trying to take action, in the hope that a reduction in traffic, even temporarily, may persuade them to do something.

[Greavsy 2,415]

30 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

Wonder what they'd have done if we weren't winning the title this weekend.

Exactly - you cannot be selective in your choices for it to be effective in my opinion. 

It should be an all or nothing for maximum effect in these things, ,and not an 'it doesn't apply to me / XYZ' approach which to me defeats the object.   

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If you want stupidity read on.

Noel Clarke has ben accused by a large number of women of sexual misconduct. He has vehemently denied any sexual misconduct but has admitted by apology that some of his actions may have affected people and is seeking professional help.

ITV announced they were pulling the plug on tonights fifth and final episode of a crime thriller he is starring in. They say their code of conduct has been breached so it it right to pull the show.

BUT

They are showing the final episode on ITV Hub this evening and it is available until Sunday and they have publicly announced this. 

So how far can their code of conduct stretch? Just enough to satisfy the advertisers?