where's "89" ?

[203]

I tried clicking on the "89" link and had to enter my password, then went to another page that said I am not allowed in. Why is this?

Also, why is it everytime I go to post something, by the time I finish typing it and click SUBMIT, I get taken back to the LOG IN page?

[Woomera]

Simple answer.

I sent it to Admin to which you do not have access, as there were posts that apart from being abusive, were or contained posts that may well have provided grounds for legal action.

You still have full access to all Forums.

I was going to post a thread on this subject but seeing as how you have already started this one it will do, if I may.

Part the First:

Apart from being busy in my personal revenue earning activities, and this is not one of them, my email redirect failed, "silently" (the pilots worst nightmare), a little while ago and this was only discovered today.

As a result there were a pile of emails from both sides complaining about the other, re this subject, even one with the suggestion that I was supporting one side and not the other.

I have replied to those that I can, to the others, please accept my apologies for not doing so and I hope that my actions in the absence of the knowledge of your concerns has been to your satisfaction.

Having said that I can not please everybody and I am not here to play favourites, simply to try to the best of my limited abilities to keep the peace and the legal buzzards away.

Neither I nor the other Woomeras in the team were then, and have not ever been "involved" in the Great War of 89 in any capacity.
As I have said before, we may have a personal view, but I/we do not have any axes to grind, this being performed quite adequately by the participants.

I was disappointed that one poster chose to suggest that I was allied to one side and behaving thus.

It would be easier to just ban ANYTHING to do with '89 but that would be dis/advantaging one side or the other, I can't and wont do that as the Forum is for ALL, the only option available to me is to try to keep it upright, in the knowledge that one, either, or both sides are going to feel "put upon".

Part the Second

For the most part, thank you for your "good behaviour" and mature posting on this most difficult of subjects.

I have ridden, I hope, with a "light rein", and within the bounds of human fallibility, I have let some things ride that perhaps either I shouldn't have or with which you do not agree.

This has been in the in the general spirit of the "play on" rule if it possible to use this as a metaphor, in allowing a deeply divisive subject to "run".

The alternative is to go into deep "rule" mode and just kill anything to do with '89.

Then ANY subject that is/was or became controversial would have to be shut down also.

I am not clever enough to work that one out.

So behave yourselves, as you usually do and to those who feel they want to test the boundaries of decency and civility, just remember I am the final authority on whether or not you continue to enjoy the benefits and opportunity to express yourself here.

And while I am feeling suitably despotic, :D you should know, and this is on impeccable authority, that you and we are privileged to be members of the PPRuNe that IS now recognised and monitored Internationally by organisations that you would ALL agree are pretty heavy hitters.

You should therefore, in how you express yourself, conduct yourself accordingly.

State your point of view clearly, rancour is not necessary or productive.:cool:

[yowie]

OK!!!

[Tool Time Two]

A wise and proper post Woomera. :cool:

[QNIM]

Woomera Well said there are some very bitter and twisted people in aviation that should get on with their life Cheers Q

[CitizenXX]

Hear Hear Woomera!!! and QNIM!

[Tool Time Two]

Now, it seems a little odd that the above post from CitizenXXXXXXXXX has arrived, given the reason contained in Woomera's post.
The reason for the removal of the '89 thread can be sourced.
Such hypocrisy would be astounding, were it not for the originator mentioned herein.
:cool:

[Slasher]

I suppose if the Simon Weisenthal Center started a debate here about bringing in 90+ year old Nazi war criminals involved in the Final Solution we would still get the same warn out replys wouldnt we.

"For Gods sake will you 43ers get a life!"

"Here we go again! Whining 43ers who just cant let it rest!"

"Im sick and tired being constantly bombarded in this forum about 1943 Poland, Dachau and Aushwitz! I wish Woomera would close this thread!"

"Seems to me the greedy 43ers got exactley what they deserved. Causing Europe to be in such a financial mess was their own damn fault to begin with!"

"The 43ers are STILL upset with the war criminals? I mean come on guys, these people must be in there late 90s by now! Give it up please!"

NO doubt the war crims would simply copy and paste replys theyve read from scabs in previous threads.

[waterops]

TTT says:

"A wise and proper post Woomera"


like I said, what a kiss-@rse.......

Have some self-respect mate.

[CitizenXX]

TTT,

I'm big enough to realize that I was probably being addressed, but are you, because no doubt you and your tragic name calling, and holier than thou attitude were also having the finger pointed at them.

Something I've observed through life is that the most self righteous are also the most easily offended.

Incidentally, I've said exactly the same thing re those who crawled back looking for a job but were rejected, a number of times, so why the outrage now?? Would you like to hear of a few others?

I had dinner with a solicitor friend and her husband a couple of nights back, and this forum was discussed. I outlined the posts, and in her opinion, there would have been no libel, no slander, and no defamation, so what are you bush lawyers on about, particularly since what I speak is fact. Well, not quite. One didn't get to apply, he/she (so I don't upset any of the self righteous) rang to ask for an application form and was advised to not bother. In fact, she said that it was an absurdity to even suggest it, let alone launch into an attack with what appeared to be any authority.

I don't know if anybody remembers the PM of the day (Gough I think) who told a Tasmanian school teacher, through the press, that he was a disgrace to his profession over some silly transgression. The teacher sued for defamaation, and was awarded $20. That's an indication of what Joe Average's reputation is worth in the eyes of the courts. Now that doesn't give anybody the right to give another a serve, but if it's fact, then that's an entirely different situation.

It's interesting to note the speed with TTT once again launches into a venomous attack. Baited again! This is too easy - like shooting fish in a barrel.

Waterops, you're right again!

[Tool Time Two]

Then, CitizenXXXXXXXXXX, I suggest you engage her should one of your targets sue.:cool:

[CitizenXX]

Slasher,

I imagine the Simon Wiesenthal centre operators would be a little pi$$ed off with you for trivializing the matter of persecution of Jews etc. and comparing it with a minor industrial hiccup at the end of the world 13 years ago.

Be serious! To compare the two incidents is infantile in the extreme.

TTT, and I'll pay the $20 if proven wrong, but the evidence is that I am not.

And TTT, is it one 'X' or multiple 'Xs"? Make up your mind please.

[Truth Seekers Int'nl]

successful litigation is only achieved when untruths and defamation have been established and proven. there have been no untruths or defamation published on any of the '89 threads i have read to date and most material that has been deemed "untrue", by BOTH sides of this complex issue, would be hard pressed being proved as such.IMHO of course:D

[nasa]

And while I am feeling suitably despotic, you should know, and this is on impeccable authority, that you and we are privileged to be members of the PPRuNe that IS now recognised and monitored Internationally by organisations that you would ALL agree are pretty heavy hitters.
Woomera.....Know if any of them want to buy an aircraft :D :D :D :D

If I set up a BB purely for the use of those besotted with '89, would you all use it please :rolleyes: :p

[CitizenXX]

TSI,

Quite right. Could you imagne somebody who sells a few bottles of vino fronting a solicitor, and telling him that he would like to initiate legal action against someone who accused him of something that he actually did. The person accused of making this dastardly true claim was no more than a nom de plume on a computer screen, probably registered to a hotmail address under a false name.

I think the solicitor might say to himself 'here's a sucker I can separate from a few grand of his cold hard and folding before I tell him that it will be a lost cause.'

And, no doubt, he would proceed to do just that.

[CitizenXX]

The '89 popularity' thread has been closed, no doubt because of yet another abusive post from TTT. Can't he get it? Keep it civil, and talk as long as you like. Get dirty, and charges apply.

As a consequence of that, I'll continue here, rather than clutter up the system with yet another new topic that deals with the same subjet.

Incidentally TTT, I didn't go back to work for me - I did it so that you would wreck your life with hatred and bitterness, and thirteen years later still be bleating about it on PPRuNe. That puts trying to justify my actions to myself, boats sinking, and other irrelevant drivel to rest.

And an edit. There was another reason. It was so that you could get off calling others 'scab', and saying, like a talking doll, 'Abeles is a criminal, you're all scabs, Abeles is still a criminal etc. ZZZZzzzzzz!!!

[Woomera]

Anybody 'round here got a wooden stake.?

NEITHER SIDE IS BLAMELESS, AND EACH ONE WANTS THE LAST WORD

So whilst I recognise the depth of feeling and without wishing to diminish it's importance, for the moment I'm going to have it

It's spring, the sun is shining, the crick is riz and I know where the boidies is.

Just all go outside and play for a while hey. ;) :D