egafd.com

Well maybe this will encourage WZR to bea bit less up his own arse and a tad nicer to the majority of his fellow forumites, without trying to be a class above as is his norm.
It can't just be pure coincidence that all these "threats" have been made to the one poster though surely, but you guys seem to gloss over that part of the equation ...

Nah, I don't care how far up your own arse you are, I wouldn't try and get you sacked from your chosen profession. That's just being a despicable snide, who wants a good hiding.

Is Warren abrasive, argumentative, annoying? Yes, he can be. Could he start a fight in an empty house? Does he perhaps kill threads by focusing on minute, barely important points. Almost certainly. But he can also rip the guts out of a flawed argument and perhaps make people shift their thinking.

Does he deserve to have his livelihood threatened? No.

We've had some really nasty pieces of work posting on this site through the years. But no matter how awful they were, never would I consider that kind of threat. It's pathetic and cowardly and is a childish reaction to losing an argument.

(Oh, and Crofter, good luck for your team tonight)

Nicely put Carac.!thumbsup!
yeah thanks (will probably need a fair slice of luck)
just off to get the beers in for tonight.!drink!

Ahhhh! so that's what this is about, I don't usually drift over to the 'other' side, i.e. promotions board, but I did notice that little fracas going on.
WZR can and is a pedantic arse sometimes, but that was well out of order.

Caractacus wrote:

> And to think I almost felt sorry for him, with Trumpton
> cyberstalking him.

My cyber "stalking" was only ever intended as a bit of fun. I thought PT was cognisant of that fact as he joined in with the banter.

Caractacus wrote:

> By the way, the offending thread seems to have gone. Many
> thanks to the powers that be.

I'll second that.

Caractacus wrote:

> Is Warren abrasive, argumentative, annoying? Yes, he can be.
> Could he start a fight in an empty house? Does he perhaps kill
> threads by focusing on minute, barely important points. Almost
> certainly. But he can also rip the guts out of a flawed
> argument and perhaps make people shift their thinking.
>
> Does he deserve to have his livelihood threatened? No.
>
> We've had some really nasty pieces of work posting on this site
> through the years. But no matter how awful they were, never
> would I consider that kind of threat. It's pathetic and
> cowardly and is a childish reaction to losing an argument.

I agree with all you've written here Carac.

Perhaps PT will do the gentlemanly thing and offer an apology to Wazza?