About my yesterday's posting.

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

Finalizing the post, I gave you two choises… to answer it if you could, or, as you are used to do when you don’t have a reasonable answer to give and the topic is showing with how many piracy acted some countries over the world, locking it or easier, as you did, occulting it.

Now I know what kind of people are managing this forum. The best thing that I can say to them is “have a nice day”.

Giuliano “Eagle” Genttilletti, from the forums:

*zonamilitar (argentina)
*malvinasvirtual (argentina)
*elsnorkel (argentina)
*fab-extraoficial (bolivia)
*mxarmedforces (mexico)
*fachextraoficial (chile)
*ww2aircraft
*ww2incolor

#2

I was thinking that you were a resonable guy Eagle. What happened?

#3

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1068

#4

Charles advice is still actual also for you Eagle:

#5

If you don’t consider to me as a non-reasonable guy, ok as you like it, but I considered that rule as an installation of the force by the british moderators, hosted by the british members, who hadn’t any answer to give. As I said in my post of yesterday, knowing that I was breaking the rule, I asked them to answer me if they had something to defend the british position… they prefered to use that ridiculous rule to not answer me.

I am not the non-reasonable Dani, they are… I am the same guy that you ever know, but if you think that being reasonable means to accept all the injustices of the british here, I won’t have any problems if you think that I am a crazy guy.

Greetings from Argentina

#6

No son, the Brits and those that have served with them merely obeyed the rules as laid down by the site admin.

As far as I’m aware this is an international site & as such I don’t think you can blame a particular natonality for cutting your thread - by your own admission it was against the rules…

I believe the rule was originally made by moderators of another nationality, if you choose to believe otherwise that is up to you.

If you think that everything is a British conspiracy then I can but pity you, if you’d followed all the threads on the subject in question you’d know that the Britcon posts were all based on established fact and internationally creditable evidence.
A couple of Argentine members and ex-members used way-up-in-the-air-junior-birdman references and expected them to be believed even when these had been proven nonsensical by no more than a little research and common sense.

Of course it could all be an international conspiracy against the Junta and its newer adherents.

As you know a certain member delights in starting scraps and breaking rules, but as we all know he’s just the site buffoon a lot more leeway is afforded him than might otherwise be the case.

I look forward to reading your normal, sensible posts.
Regards,
Cuts.

#7

Seconded.

#8

Eagle, please, don’t take it so offensive, but you can read the forums, and I’m a contryman of you, and what I read was… taking too personal.
Like in all the things in life here have rules. There’s no conspiracy or less
and here don’t matter the color of skin, or creed, just the opinion on the
currents forum, sometimes invaluable. Since I was visit the foum, you research into deep of it and I was learn. Anybody here knows that I was a soldier and fight these war, but your wound is so deeper than mine.
My advice: Not taking it all so personal.
Regards :arrow:

#9

Gracias cpl condor for your nice post! :smiley:

I hope that also Erwin will understand your message.

#10

Eagle, as the only British Mod I can assure you that this rule was made by non-British Mods quite a while ago.

The reasons were simple. The threads always degenerated into a flaming war of bickering between the British and Argentinians that did absolutely nothing for the subject or for the site.

Therefore, it was I who moved your post the other day. If certain members had been more reasonable about the debate in the past it may have been allowed to stay!

However. There has been a lot of discussion behind the scenes about the subject of material that is not ww2 and as I have already said, there might be a solution to it without upsetting members who dislike non-ww2 threads.

Kudous to Condor for being a voice of reason here.

#11

Eagle, I have a lot of time for you as a poster on this site. I do not know what you posted, however, if you wish you could always PM me the post, and we can discuss in one on one, as adults, away from prying eyes.

Your call mate.

1000ydstare

#12

Cuts, partner, you said to me: “I look forward to reading your normal, sensible posts”
My sensible posts are that where I don’t judge the awful external politic of the United Kingdom? I think that wasn’t a insensible post, only because I’ve broken the rule of the Malvinas/Falkland thread.
As I said to Dani, if you think that I am a crazy boy only because I am agaisnt the most of the member’s ideas, as you like it, but I am the same… I won’t insult to anybody, that’s not my type. You can search in all my posts and I think you won’t find any insult or something without sense.
You said me this too:
“As you know a certain member delights in starting scraps and breaking rules, but as we all know he’s just the site buffoon a lot more leeway is afforded him than might otherwise be the case.”
You know that without that member the discussions of any topic, including Malvinas/Falkland topics were serious and with respect in both sides… Why are the moderators locking to the subject, and not to that member who is the real problem here? It wouldn’t be easier to discuss all the topics that we want?

Condor:

You are relatively new in this forum, so I doubt if you really know what happened here. I keep on my thoughts about that rule… It have no sense.
I am not taking all so personal, the only that I cannot stand is the fact that all here agree that the problem isn’t the subject and the real problem is only one person. Why lock a subject if it is not the problem?
A simple example… if we are playing football and one player knocked to a rival, what’s the most appropriate to do? Expel that player of the match, or finish the entire match?

Firefly:

Ok I can understand that the rule was made by non-british moderators, as I’ve said to Condor, the problem now is the rule itself, I keep believing that rule have no sense.
I can’t agree with you about why was locked the subject… you said that the problem was the topic always degenerated into a flaming war between british and argentinians. As far as I saw and you know that very well, the “flaming war” was between the british members with ONE argentinian, not all the ARGENTINIAN MEMBERS. Are the moderators incapable of stop just one member in order to liberate the topic again?

1000ydstare:

I accept your alternative of solution to the problem, it seems to be that at least one british is prepared to discuss seriously the topic. As I see you were the only that don’t treated me as a crazy person, or as someone who only wants to disturb to the people… greetings friend.

Ok… I accept, almost “against my thoughts”, the possibility of interchanging thoughts and discussions of the Malvinas/Falkland topic by the Private Messages service. I am waiting for his requests, discussions, answer or whatever you want in a PM. But that accept is temporary… In other opportunity, if is necessary and suitable, I could restore my claims… The only thing that I am asking is that you accept, members and moderators, that the problem is not the subject because I had really good discussions with Festamus, 1000ydstare, Cuts, etc, is anybody capable to reckon the problem is only a person that the moderators are not enabled to stop him?

Greetings from Argentina

#13

Eagle.

The title of this site and forum is ww2 in Colour and not 1982 in Colour. I know we have a lot of off topic discussions on other things and I realise you would like to talk about the Malvinas again.

Until we can come up with a solution to bring back such a topic it will remain closed I’m afraid.

It was not just 1 person that disrupted these, as you claim, there were several Brits that came here just to join that debate as well, one of them has since been banned for other reasons. Several Argentines also came here for this specific debate that I have not seen on the boards since it was closed.

Now we are faced with some options. Allow the Malvinas Thread again and face the return of these people, find a way that the guys who want to discuss the topic can do so without disrupting the rest of the forum or keep it as it is.

All of the above is being debated in the Admin/Mod area. When we come up with a solution that we think is best for all, we will let you know.

As an alternative, in the meantime, have you thought about setting up your own debating forum? I have a couple of accounts at RUNBOARD, its free and easy to use, you could link to it and would be yours to do with as you wish.

Give me a PM if you are interested in carrying this idea further.

Cheers…

#14

I don’t think you’re crazy at all Eagle, perhaps I could have phrased my comment better.
I too criticise many of the policies used in the name of the Crown, but try to look at them objectively.

I meant that the transgression of the rule was slightly ill-advised. I do agree with you that the subject should be discussed though, the PM idea looks like the best we can come up with until the problems mentioned are solved.

It is only natural that patriotism will give a certain amoun of bias to some posts, but yours come across as well presented and informative without any of the rabid ranting that we have grown used to from other quarters.

Regards,
Cuts.

#15

Eagle, te mande un Mp, si tenes tiempo revisalo.

#16

I could be new, but I can read the old posts. And always find a reference about the same. Don’t forget, but let it go, :arrow:

#17

1000ydstare, I am still looking forward your answer on PM.

#18

No matter what happens, you are an invalorable member of this forum.

#19

Jajaj gracias loco pero parece que el único que piensa eso sos vos por estas latitudes. Saludos.