|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 21, 2011 23:29:00 GMT
Tony has stated that he's Pete's stepson.
Certainly he's very "ITK" re Pete...
I don't think my views have changed regarding keeping people's information private!
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 21, 2011 23:35:38 GMT
Mac stated on here the other day, no users of this site (including Tonyr1) need fear their personal/private e-mail addresses being handed to the club nor any officials from the club etc etc. It wont be happening.
Pete does have plenty to worry about. It's part of Internet integrity, ethics and equittee. Such information is not handed out unless in exceptional circumstances such as a court order and other legal avenues at the highest level. In Pete's case, it was hardly rocket science and when Ric Roc requested the thread to be removed, it should have been and should have stayed removed. When other users questioned why, it's simple. Pete could have issued a comment along the lines "At the thread initiators request, the thread was removed" end of story.
Now he is trying to make himself appear the victim and in reality it was Ric Roc.
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 22, 2011 1:46:24 GMT
Just to note, i thought tonyr1 was a genuine worried QPRreport poster who was alerting us of maybe a loophole in the privacy set up. but after reading responses from our mods i recall tony1r being a sh1t stirrer on previous occasions on this site. Apologies. maude, unfortunately the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 22, 2011 2:12:28 GMT
It's good to know Pete is trying to keep up with events on this site. From the slating he's been receiving on LFW perhaps he's finally realised we're not as bad as he thought.
Then again, as has been stated before, he's not banned under his original name, so he could have posted on here.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 22, 2011 9:30:22 GMT
At some point, the club I presume will take an objective look at QPR player and its Saturday show, and consider whether they have the best format, the best hosts they can get, the ones who will attract the most listeners, etc.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 22, 2011 9:31:13 GMT
Pete is welcome to post here with any name as long as he doesn't pretend to be someone or something else and simply try to be a disruptive influence, that nobody wants on here, as that will result in the same action he has complained about in the past even thought he claimed it was not him. Clear?
|
|
tonyr1
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 119
|
Post by tonyr1 on Oct 22, 2011 9:31:41 GMT
Longunmen wrong on two counts.
He is indeed banned and has been for about a year. Plus, This site is owned by Pro-boards which is an American company. They would pass on any information if required to do so. In fact with with Pro-boards it would not only be an email passed on, it would be an IP address too, which would lead to knowing any individuals personal address.
Its that simple
You used to have a moderating section that no-one saw called watrbslime1968 which only moderators could visit and pass comments on how to undermine Peter with comments on various messageboards. Are you saying that is not correct either?
How sure are you that Pro-boards did not passed that on?
Just to clear I am not Pete as I have confirmed before
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 22, 2011 9:42:39 GMT
I'll repeat, Pete is not banned, qblockpete removed his own account. Certain disruptive posters and unwelcome posters were banned althought claimed it was not him. Dentist being one for example.
I can assure you, qblockpete is not on our banned list.
In order to get information from proboards you would need to go through the US courts, just like you would do with twitter or facebook so give it a rest.
There are loads of private boards where people discuss things privately, hardly anything new or indeed rocket science and simply another example of passing out private information over the internet which your step father is now particularly famous for, good work.
|
|
tonyr1
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 119
|
Post by tonyr1 on Oct 22, 2011 9:46:26 GMT
so discussing privately where a group of 10 moderators have a section called watrbslime1968 and how to attack Pete is okay?
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 22, 2011 9:49:02 GMT
That was not the name nor was it to discuss Pete but there you go, your opinion will never change as you clearly know more about it than I.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 22, 2011 10:05:41 GMT
so discussing privately where a group of 10 moderators have a section called watrbslime1968 and how to attack Pete is okay? Fair enough. Longunmen wrong on two counts. He is indeed banned and has been for about a year. Plus, This site is owned by Pro-boards which is an American company. They would pass on any information if required to do so. In fact with with Pro-boards it would not only be an email passed on, it would be an IP address too, which would lead to knowing any individuals personal address. Its that simple You used to have a moderating section that no-one saw called watrbslime1968 which only moderators could visit and pass comments on how to undermine Peter with comments on various messageboards. Are you saying that is not correct either? How sure are you that Pro-boards did not passed that on? Just to clear I am not Pete as I have confirmed before A far more interesting issue might be why the moderators HAD to set up a private moderators section. We certainly didn't have one for the first year of so, of this board's existence.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 22, 2011 10:15:16 GMT
Perhaps your step father could learn a thing or two about privacy, understanding it's meaning would be a good start. Equally, a minor understanding of the data protection act would also help. Of course, if you feel passing out personal information to all and sundry is fine then so be it.
I find it quite amusing that the well worn tactic of trying to raise something spurious from the past in an attempt to defend actions that are completely indefensible. Therefore the actual action is left undefended and is the standard modus operandi.
Still, if Pete wants to see an end to all of this sorry little episode you are doing a good job of ensuring that he doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Oct 22, 2011 10:18:33 GMT
so discussing privately where a group of 10 moderators have a section called watrbslime1968 and how to attack Pete is okay? Fair enough. Liar. No one has ever discussed 'how to attack Pete'. Discussions have taken place on how to defend from attacks by Pete on this board and several others, however unfortunate that may be. It didn't surprise though that a site involved in attacking this board, stealing it's password and publishing it on the internet amongst lies would eventually go to far and break the data protection act and betray it's own posters. That unfortunate choice of password was a reflection of a prolonged campaign of flaming on this board and the permitting of insulting comments made elsewhere by others. Stealing private information and publishing it are just two more examples of how low some are willing to go.
|
|
|
Post by mikehunt on Oct 22, 2011 10:58:13 GMT
What was it about the draw against a team thats well settled in the premiership that you personally didnt like, and what do you think was the really bad parts about the performance that made Warnock bring up ric roc and his posting of injury news and team selection? I would like to know, because i didnt think it was that bad a match at all, and i genuinly believed Warnock was just seriously aggrieved that he has a leak in his dressing room, and his outburst and anger was over someone posting up sensitive information on a forum, and nothing more than that, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible performance in getting a home draw in the premiership. That's two posts of mine now where I've not said anything yet you are implying I have. I didn't say whether I was or wasn't happy with the result or the performance. If you disagree with me when I give my opinion on something that's fine but you are disagreeing with something I haven't even written or implied. Warnock himself has said he wasn't happy with the performance and the way we defended at the corner that led to Samba's goal. Sorry if i have come across a bit strong and taking your posts wrong, but i feel very annoyed that there is a player in our dressing room passing out senstive information that none of us need to know, i think it can only do harm. And i also think the player and the poster of the news were being detrimental to the well being of our football club.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Oct 22, 2011 11:23:15 GMT
How sure are you that Pro-boards did not passed that on? Are you suggesting that Pro Boards entered into a legal agreement with us over our personal details such as passwords and then provided us with the means to use those passwords only to then simply give that password out to someone on the strength of a simple email or phone call thus breaking their agreement with us and at the same time deliberately disabling their own security feature? Interesting. Do you have any facts to back this up or is it pure conjecture in an attempt to deflect attention from someone close who has actually broken such trust? I'd prefer facts as that is a serious accusation to level at Pro Boards, but as they have never contacted us about it, I believe it to be entirely baseless and irrelevant accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 22, 2011 11:35:03 GMT
Talking of Taarabt out. Mail and Telegraph say he is a doubt for Sunday due to illness !!!!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 22, 2011 11:37:30 GMT
Whoever leaked that illness news to the press......!
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Oct 22, 2011 11:52:49 GMT
Talking of Taarabt out. Mail and Telegraph say he is a doubt for Sunday due to illness !!!! Not good news. I think we need him for this match, as he's definitely got the skill to beat their defence and needs a big match to prove himself and turn it on. Get well Adel, if this is true.
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Oct 22, 2011 12:09:33 GMT
It's the 5-4-1. Told ya! Oops I have divulged secret information! But I created the formation, it wadna my fault!
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Oct 22, 2011 12:17:31 GMT
Thanks to those welcoming me! I'm a loyal guy hence why I stuck with WATRBs but ultimately I feel now is the right time to come and debate with you guys. I enjoy that this board doesn't result to name calling and keyboard gansters and that debate is taken seriously and opinions are heard. WATRBs was and will continue to be a great forum but something about this forum and how I would like to discuss QPR just feels right. Yay!!! I really missed you in the close season, it was a nightmare, an absolute nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 22, 2011 14:39:35 GMT
so discussing privately where a group of 10 moderators have a section called watrbslime1968 and how to attack Pete is okay? Fair enough. Actually I think whatever password was chosen is fair enough. We have nothing to apologise for or explain to the likes if you. So get over it. You don't know what was discussed and you're making up stuff. The regular WATRBS grass revealed a password that was confidential. So it's no surprise that the super grass owner has done the same to one of his own members. He has a proven record as a sell out so he's only playing true to form. You claim your his step son. That's really nothing to be proud of, so I doubt that's true. The incompetence in your posts and style of posting indicates that you and Freeseat are one of the same.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 22, 2011 18:28:42 GMT
So come on Tony, show us the evidence, just answer the question. I would say that the only way Pro Boards would ever dilvulge any personal information is under a Court order in the USA or agovernment agencey such as Home Land Secuirty etc. In the big scheme of things, neil Warnocks team line up means absolutely nothing to Pro Boards. I think you have dellusions of grandeur and higher importance than it really is worth.
And todays NARK scores are: QPR Report board giving out alleged sensitive information 0 Pete & WATRB's giving out alleged sensitive information 2.
And that is a fact!
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 22, 2011 19:16:05 GMT
That's two posts of mine now where I've not said anything yet you are implying I have. I didn't say whether I was or wasn't happy with the result or the performance. If you disagree with me when I give my opinion on something that's fine but you are disagreeing with something I haven't even written or implied. Warnock himself has said he wasn't happy with the performance and the way we defended at the corner that led to Samba's goal. Sorry if i have come across a bit strong and taking your posts wrong, but i feel very annoyed that there is a player in our dressing room passing out senstive information that none of us need to know, i think it can only do harm. And i also think the player and the poster of the news were being detrimental to the well being of our football club. No problems. I agree it's wrong that there is someone relaying information unfortunately it's nothing new. We've had 'rumours' which have turned out to be real and we've all believed for a long time that Paladini has been feeding anyone willing to listen information about the club. We had Sousa gate and regularly we're reading that person x from the club said this to person y in the fish aisle at Tesco. Ultimately if effects the club the likes of TF and AB have to stamp it out. Whether they do we will have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 22, 2011 19:22:44 GMT
Well the well has certainly dried up as such, very few ITK bullshit tidbits these days. And as staff leave the club, it becomes obvious where any ITK crap comes from. I can see only a couple of constants left there.
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 22, 2011 19:23:14 GMT
I stepped away from WATRBs because it no longer felt right for me so the last thing I want to do is to get involved in debate about it. However if the likes of Tony want to talk about what the moderators supposedly discuss behind the scenes on this forum I'm definitely in a position to put him straight about what they talked about behind the scenes on WATRBs as I was a moderator their for two years. I DON'T want to have to do that so please find another forum to talk about that forum and let the good people of this forum discuss QPR like they and I would like to to.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 22, 2011 19:28:32 GMT
It's ok SPC, this thread would have died but for Tony fanning a dying ember and bringing the fire back to life. I am quite sure any input on issues other than Mods etc are very much welcome on here. I think this thread has pretty much well done it's dashin that respect of the mods issue SPC unless Tony feels it needs to be kept alive. Onwards and upwards.
|
|