Vic Evans


(Ian Davison) #1

I have noticed that Vic seems to have disappeared from SFN. Does anyone have any info?


(Peter Bird) #2

Dear oh dear...

...life is far too short ...


(Peter Bird) #3

Probably something to do with the hormones my dear ? (sexist or what ?)


(James Higginson) #4

Terry has posted on this subject already, you can see his comments here. Decisions made to revoke membership are not taken lightly and when they are taken they are final.

In the course of the last five years we have taken many decisions about the way SFN is run, including banning some members for a variety of reasons. And it is because of these decisions, and not in spite of them, that SFN is what it is today, an open forum where everyone has a right to his or her opinion and to express that opinion provided it is done politely, respects the opinion of others and is not libellous.

Inevitably, our decisions will affect other members, some positively and some negatively, as in your case. You may not agree with them but they are always made with the good of the community in mind and are never personal or reactive and rarely are they based upon isolated incidents.

We have few rules and regulations on SFN and we would like to keep it that way. But those we do have must be respected.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Without these rules SFN would simply not exist. We are not denying anyone the freedom of speech, we simply will not tolerate poor behaviour in our house.


(Jane Williamson) #5

Glad I am in the forefront of your mind Peter, but I was left feeling a tad confused.

As usual.


(Peter Bird) #6

Ah yes excuse me, thanks for the correction CH - it was definitey meant for Barbara, many apologies Jane !


(Catharine Higginson) #7

I think you were replying to Barbara and typed Jane in mistake.


(Peter Bird) #8

Sorry Jane, i'm a bit lost - what did I say please ? (and when ?)


(Jane Williamson) #9

I don't understand Peter, I have only posted on this thread today. To what were you referring, assuming it is me?


(Jane Williamson) #10

My reply was to Steve Yates, but has somehow popped up here.


(Jane Williamson) #11

Me too.


(Jane Williamson) #12

My comments were really meant to show that whilst the vast majority of us are happy to post our 'photos, hiding behind the anonymity of a black square is as unpleasant to me as seeing women in Gloucester covered from head to toe in black and walking behind their male relatives.


(Peter Bird) #13

I've said my bit William regarding Vic and my feelings haven't changed. Freedom of speech appears to be quite arbitary at times on here which is baffling. Life really IS too short for nit-picking and other trivialities. Any forum needs variation & alternative ideas not to mention humour. Why can't we simply put up with each other, warts 'n all ?


(William Chapman) #14

So one rule for Vic and other long term contributors and another for everyone else?
Bravo to SFN for applying their regulations consistently.
One of the criticisms I regularly read about this network is that there is a nucleus of seemingly untouchable members. That damages the integrity of the site.
I for one might contribute more frequently if I can be confident that everyone is treated equally.


(Nick Ord) #15

I didn’t say oddball, so Divvent worry.:-o


(Brian Milne) #16

Poor Nick, how can you? ;-)


(Brian Milne) #17

Must be a lot of teabags in that cup!


(Peter Bird) #18

Shut it fuzz face !


(Peter Bird) #19

............."odd members"............

'Ere, who are you calling ODD ?


(Nick Ord) #20

Just wide awake Brian and full of Typhoo - my morning pêché mignon.