Message From Neil

[Dohmar]

neither does a bloody post count.

Can't argue with that....

-D

[D_Stirls]

FYI People

Just heard that channel 7 is at an accident scene ATM gathering footage of a red R33 that has taken out a stobie pole on Port Rd.

We're going to be completely F#*Ked if this doesn't stop for at least 6 months.

EDIT!!

Apparently it was a 32 not a 33

Edited April 1, 2009 by D_Stirls

[okooko]

FYI People

Just heard that channel 7 is at an accident scene ATM gathering footage of a red R33 that has taken out a stobie pole on Port Rd.

We're going to be completely F#*Ked if this doesn't stop for at least 6 months.

not watching the new atm, is it severe? or just injuries?

hope its not a speeding incident

[SLED]

ted180, I was prepared to overlook the fact that you were posting a banned members thoughts in a post.....up until the cheap shot.

So as Andrew said earlier about monitoring IP's, posting thru another member is no different......banned means banned!

You have therefore scored yourself a warning and you can thank Nisskid for that........for anyone else wishing to post banned members posts.....don't do it, otherwise what's the point of even giving someone time out?!

[dark.sky]

FYI People

Just heard that channel 7 is at an accident scene ATM gathering footage of a red R33 that has taken out a stobie pole on Port Rd.

We're going to be completely F#*Ked if this doesn't stop for at least 6 months.

Hope they are okay and like Unit Zero said hope it wasnt a speeding incident.

A Skyline aint the only car which can take out a stobie though......

Edited April 1, 2009 by 93GTST

[D_Stirls]

Hope they are okay and like Unit Zero said hope it wasnt a speeding incident.

A Skyline aint the only car which can take out a stobie though......

That's not the point though because you can bet your ass that isn't what the news will be saying tonight.

[dark.sky]

That's not the point though because you can bet your ass that isn't what the news will be saying tonight.

Yeah thats right, what you just said is what I meant. Maybe I should have used a different choice of words

[ted180]

EDIT -

Your post was fine up until that line.

I honestly don't see what was wrong with that, it was a genuine disclaimer, last time he posted about defects it was misinterpreted as a personal attack on sled, to remove any doubt he made sure it was known it had no subliminal value. It was either post it as is and risk another misinterpretation, extending the ban, or making it clear it wasn't a personal attack, seemed like the responsible thing to do.

Ultimately, you can't really expect to ban a member for a 100% innocent post that you misinterpreted, and not expect to leave a bitter taste in their mouth.

[SLED]

I don't give a rats about the content......DONT POST ON BEHALF OF BANNED MEMBERS!!

[Minibats]

off topic yes but.. Cmon guys give Neil some praise for trying to help out. Well Done NENE again!

Edited April 1, 2009 by Minibats

[Dohmar]

I honestly don't see what was wrong with that, it was a genuine disclaimer, last time he posted about defects it was misinterpreted as a personal attack on sled, to remove any doubt he made sure it was known it had no subliminal value. It was either post it as is and risk another misinterpretation, extending the ban, or making it clear it wasn't a personal attack, seemed like the responsible thing to do.

Ultimately, you can't really expect to ban a member for a 100% innocent post that you misinterpreted, and not expect to leave a bitter taste in their mouth.

Well I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of your beef, however for some reason you (nisskid) were banned - now if you don't like that, you can always appeal to the other mods of the board, I'm sure they will hear you out and decide for themselves if sled was being out of line. Or, sometimes its easier to just cop the holiday and let things pass naturally. It would have been a 100% innocent post but you mentioned his name - I take this as a baiting... there just simply wasn't any need for it.

And ted, you probably should have known better than to post for a temporarily banned member... but it seems like you only ever post negative comments these days so I doubt my words would mean anything to you at this stage.

-D

[ted180]

I don't give a rats about the content......DONT POST ON BEHALF OF BANNED MEMBERS!!

ted180, I was prepared to overlook the fact that you were posting a banned members thoughts in a post.....up until the cheap shot.

So what cheap shot were you referring to then?

[ted180]

Well I'm not getting into the nitty gritty of your beef, however for some reason you (nisskid) were banned - now if you don't like that, you can always appeal to the other mods of the board, I'm sure they will hear you out and decide for themselves if sled was being out of line. Or, sometimes its easier to just cop the holiday and let things pass naturally. It would have been a 100% innocent post but you mentioned his name - I take this as a baiting... there just simply wasn't any need for it.

And ted, you probably should have known better than to post for a temporarily banned member... but it seems like you only ever post negative comments these days so I doubt my words would mean anything to you at this stage.

-D

The 100% innocent comment that he was banned for never mentioned his name, it had nothing to do with SLED. This is the post that he was banned for:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...t&p=4511506

He was banned on the grounds that Sled thought the post was subliminally directed at him as a mod.

You be the judge.

[rhys5169]

all this talk of warnings and banning members etc but how am i still the only one with 20% below my name?lol me and andrew <3 now

[Dohmar]

The 100% innocent comment that he was banned for never mentioned his name, it had nothing to do with SLED. This is the post that he was banned for:

http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/in...t&p=4511506

He was banned on the grounds that Sled thought the post was subliminally directed at him as a mod.

You be the judge.

Actually he was banned for the posts leading up to post #57 (on page 3) as well I suspect some PM arguments that were previously alluded to.. it just so happens that sled didnt respond to it until you'd already posted again, an estimated duration of 6 hours difference. like I said, I'm not going to get into whether or not either one of you are right, simply because I just don't care. However if you have an axe to grind against any single mod, speak to the rest of the mods and make an official complaint. Fighting in public is undignified.

-D

[D_Stirls]

and there we go the opening story on Channel 7, i only saw the last 15 seconds though but they were questioning the power and availability of the performance import vehicles dues to their low cost. They claimed than Vinh's WRX only cost $11,000.

[dark.sky]

Yeah I heard that part

Edited April 1, 2009 by 93GTST

[SHYGRL]

yea they said he never held a licence n that he paid 11,000 for the wrx, the skyline driver had 6 expiation notices n they will be investigating how cheap it is to get performance cars

[dark.sky]

^ I edited a some of that out of my post but yes I did hear all that.

[Sinful]

Well done Nene.. This looks like a step in the right direction

Tho Neils comments seem broad and normal but him making the contact is atleast nice..

Has Neil helped out on any cruises yet that SAU has organised?