Beyond MI6

Not sure what the admin means, but Oxbridge is not a place, it's short hand for England's oldest and greatest universities, Oxford and Cambridge.

FieldsMan wrote:

FieldsMan
Lazenby
James C
Commander James Bond (Now CJB, I assume)
Louis Armstrong (now Louis Strongarm)
AgentFae
Makeshyft Python
Shaken, Not Stirred
The White Tuxedo

That's all so far from MI6 I think...

I am Golden Gun, btw :).

I get what you are saying, Timmer.... I would agree if we had a few dozen more members that we knew. I just don't want to see a flood of people who Tux, Fieldsman and Brown have to moderated. It's easier if the tone is set by everyone... I worry that some kids, and many of them will be kids, will think that the tit section is a porn section.

But I think what you were saying is what M and Lazenby. had in mind anyway.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

My post was immediately removed and the comment the mod posted was:

"Note: I realise your entire post was nonsense (I guess you'd say it was 'funny', but then you're a little special), but next time please have your fun <i>without</i> disparaging the name of the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">greatest educational</span> greatest ever institution in the world, OK? That way we won't have a problem."

I love that not only does no one have a sense of humour, but that apparently I'm not elitist ENOUGH.

That was not a mod. That was Nick_Nack... an old member returned. You'll see that mod NicNac said it was nice to see you around.

ambler wrote:

Not sure what the admin means, but Oxbridge is not a place, it's short hand for England's oldest and greatest universities, Oxford and Cambridge.

Yeah, I was trying to do the elitism joke and he took it as a disparaging comment against the institutions since he apparently went to Cambridge.

retrokitty wrote:

I worry that some kids, and many of them will be kids, will think that the tit section is a porn section.

I don't think adults and children coexist happily online. Mr Brown is of the opinion that we should have a minimum age as part of the T&C and I agree.

As for the tit thread, wasn't that your suggestion?

ambler wrote:

I don't think adults and children coexist happily online. Mr Brown is of the opinion that we should have a minimum age as part of the T&C and I agree.

The problem is the difference of maturity having nothing to do with age in some respects. There are teenagers who are capable of intelligent and respectful discourse, and then there are people in their late twenties who think that the humour of Mike Myers is subtle. So it would be tough to decide on an age that way.

A minimum age won't help with people who are of age but don't think.

I like tits... so sue me. That thread is nice.... but it would be nice if it could remain an admiration thread and keep the dirty business in text on Baker Street.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

ambler wrote:

I don't think adults and children coexist happily online. Mr Brown is of the opinion that we should have a minimum age as part of the T&C and I agree.

The problem is the difference of maturity having nothing to do with age in some respects. There are teenagers who are capable of intelligent and respectful discourse, and then there are people in their late twenties who think that the humour of Mike Myers is subtle. So it would be tough to decide on an age that way.

retrokitty wrote:

A minimum age won't help with people who are of age but don't think.

That's really not what I meant. It's the legal situation that concerns me. There is a general feeling - and, in some countries, laws - that those under 16 should not be exposed to particular language or images. Rather than constrain those who are of age, I say let's exclude those who aren't.

ambler wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

ambler wrote:

I don't think adults and children coexist happily online. Mr Brown is of the opinion that we should have a minimum age as part of the T&C and I agree.

The problem is the difference of maturity having nothing to do with age in some respects. There are teenagers who are capable of intelligent and respectful discourse, and then there are people in their late twenties who think that the humour of Mike Myers is subtle. So it would be tough to decide on an age that way.

retrokitty wrote:

A minimum age won't help with people who are of age but don't think.

That's really not what I meant. It's the legal situation that concerns me. There is a general feeling - and, in some countries, laws - that those under 16 should not be exposed to particular language or images. Rather than constrain those who are of age, I say let's exclude those who aren't.

Ah, I gotcha.

retrokitty wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Ah, I gotcha.

Fairbairn-Sykes: Valued Contributor.

I think 16 is a reasonable age limit. But what's more important is being able to deal with the sort of morons who come in all ages. I wonder if it would be possible to come to an agreement as to precisely who those people are though. For example there are some who felt that Scashy was a "legend" and others who thought he was an annoying t***.

ambler wrote:

Not sure what the admin means, but Oxbridge is not a place, it's short hand for England's oldest and greatest universities, Oxford and Cambridge respectively.

Fixed that one for you. Oxford is just Cambridge Lite.

It's probably best to just ignore the mathmo. They're brilliant people (getting onto Mathematics at Cambridge is no walk in the park), but they're not quite as friendly as us historians.

How do we lose members? I mean, yesterday this site had 65 members; today, 64. Why would someone delete their membership instead of just not posting?

Scashy's account was deleted.

I sincerely doubt is was the real thing. More likely it was a sockpuppet for an MI6 mole or mod. They knew we sympathised with poor ol' Scash, so it would seem a perfect cover. Thankfully we're a bit smarter than that.

So that prick Bartleby loves TWINE. No wonder he hates us.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

My post was immediately removed and the comment the mod posted was:

"Note: I realise your entire post was nonsense (I guess you'd say it was 'funny', but then you're a little special), but next time please have your fun <i>without</i> disparaging the name of the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">greatest educational</span> greatest ever institution in the world, OK? That way we won't have a problem."

I love that not only does no one have a sense of humour, but that apparently I'm not elitist ENOUGH.

Yeah, I notice all the elitist posts by other members are gone too. Does it really bother them THAT much? Fucking Christ.

I don't even remember scashy so know know what the deal was with Classsic MI6 or here.

Who is that Bartleby anyway? It's gotta be a cover for someone because it sure has taken sides and made things personal quickly.

Conspiracy theories abounds! On KTBEU he was 'Green'. A new member, maybe a hundred posts. I didn't agree with him much, but he was well-spoken, had a definite personality and made a few interesting posts.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Conspiracy theories abounds! On KTBEU he was 'Green'. A new member, maybe a hundred posts. I didn't agree with him much, but he was well-spoken, had a definite personality and made a few interesting posts.

What was his most frequent avatar? I've got a visual memory.

It was a black and white image from a Bond comic. Two men standing next to each other, cropped at the waist, facing to the right, one of them looking upwards.

Was he friendly?

Can the last two registered members here please sort out their identity crisis quickly, and maybe provide the source of their invitation here?

If not, I'll remove both accounts immediately and lock the forums. This fake accounts charade is becoming tiresome. I've better things to be doing with my night than being pelted with e-mails and PMs about a war which evidently belongs on another site.

Thank you.

I assume I'm one of the last two members.

I was invited by CJB, Ambler and retrokitty.

I initially signed on as Perilagu Khan, but for some reason was not allowed to log on under that account. Accordingly, I registered again under the name Stilicho Bias and with a different password.

Problem solved. Accounts removed. Joke over.

The forums are now e-mail approval only until further notice.

Thanks.


No worries Stilicho, I was referring to the two "James Pages".