c4countdown

Gavin Chipper wrote:Regardless of what good would come from remembering or forgetting, wouldn't it just be weird to forget all about him and pretend it never happened?

It would be satisfying. I take this attitude primarily to people who shoot-up high schools and such after writing in their blog how the world will remember them. Shan't! And in this particular case because he is just plain sick and disgusting and creepy.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Regardless of what good would come from remembering or forgetting, wouldn't it just be weird to forget all about him and pretend it never happened?

It would be satisfying. I take this attitude primarily to people who shoot-up high schools and such after writing in their blog how the world will remember them. Shan't! And in this particular case because he is just plain sick and disgusting and creepy.

So who decides who we forget and who we don't?

Charlie Reams wrote:So who decides who we forget and who we don't?

Since the idea is not enforcible, everybody can decide for him or herself. I only said "I would drop him".

But if you want to poke fun at a disgusting old man with weird ideas and a shaky grasp of reality, why not choose the Pope? You could even use the same accent.

I understand Rosemary's point with respect to US college shootings and suchlike, where a large part of the individual's incentive is the infamy and media attention, which of course they always receive. I don't think that's really the case with Josef though as he clearly didn't intend to get caught and isn't relishing the attention (likewise Shipman etc).

So...

The Josef Fritzl character is funny because of the ridiculous and unlikely juxtaposition of Horrific Child Rapist with inoffensive teatime TV show, right? And it is precisely because he is such a monster that it's funny?

But isn't it also possible that when people see throwaway lines like "I can't beat that but I can rape my kids", they will assume that whoever runs this site thinks rape and child abuse are no big deal, and things to be made light of?

There also seems to be an implication here that anyone who finds this character offensive is humourless and po-faced, and this adds yet another element to the humour - cos you can have a bit of a giggle as you imagine the shocked faces of all those politically-correct-gone-mad Mary Whitehouse types, and get some satisfaction at the thought of them dropping their digestive biscuits into their cups of tea in horror at what these outrageous Apterous folk have been getting up to.

Fair enough, except that this is nothing to do with political correctness. It's about having a bit of sensitivity and, dare I say it, human decency. Because there are a shockingly high number of people out there who have been victims of rape and child sex abuse and will suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives. And, amazingly, don't find it funny. And don't expect to be confronted with people implying it's no big deal when they're in the middle of playing their favourite game.

When Chris Morris made a comedy show which used child abuse as the basis for humour, it was genuinely funny. It was also making some serious and important points. It's not that the subject can never be used as joke fodder, but as I believe Charlie has said elsewhere, the higher the offense, the funnier the joke has to be. And these are pathetically poor jokes. Also, abuse survivors had the choice whether to watch Chris Morris' show or not. The JF character on Apterous is akin to having bad child abuse jokes made by the guests on your favourite quiz show. The only choice you have is to stop watching that show, which seems a bit unfair.

Someone has spoken out in this thread as a survivor of abuse and explained that the JF character causes her distress... and not only have some people not given her a sensitive ear, but several have waded in to have a go at her. "We were provoked," I hear you cry. "She insulted us! She deserved everything she got!" Right... or you could take a step back and cut her a bit of slack. It's clearly an emotive subject for her, and it may well have been hard for her to discuss it in a public forum like this (or she would have mentioned it in the first place).

Maybe the question should be this: Is the joke so brilliant that it's worth causing distress to others, and do you really want to leave it there just to spite someone who's thrown a few mild insults around, but has surely suffered enough in this regard already?

Welcome to the forum - that's some first post

Julie T wrote: Thanks for posting, Ross. The silent majority speaking up!
It's not too late. We won the vote, it's just that Charlie, etc., aren't bothered.

Unfortunately, the ones who do the programming don't care that others are repulsed by this.
Their own amusement is much more important than others' feelings, despite a big majority vote against the character over those for.
I stand by my comments. I don't intend to let these people's amorality drive me away from apterous, though.

I'm surprised that you continue to say that I've no morals Julie, you might as well just call me a liar. Either that, or you don't understand my position, which I thought I'd made pretty clear above.

Just because we end up at a different conclusion with regard to the appearance of such characters in a humorous context (i.e. we exercise our morals differently as it were), there is no obvious logical path for you to assume that I am therefore amoral.

Is it a case that you're trying to apply your own morals to someone else's lifestyle? I could word this better. Erm, maybe you have a problem adjusting to the fact the other people don't fit into your moral view of the world and it makes you angry? I'm not sure. Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud here, carry on with your business.

Alice Moore wrote:So...

The Josef Fritzl character is funny because of the ridiculous and unlikely juxtaposition of Horrific Child Rapist with inoffensive teatime TV show, right? And it is precisely because he is such a monster that it's funny?

But isn't it also possible that when people see throwaway lines like "I can't beat that but I can rape my kids", they will assume that whoever runs this site thinks rape and child abuse are no big deal, and things to be made light of?

There also seems to be an implication here that anyone who finds this character offensive is humourless and po-faced, and this adds yet another element to the humour - cos you can have a bit of a giggle as you imagine the shocked faces of all those politically-correct-gone-mad Mary Whitehouse types, and get some satisfaction at the thought of them dropping their digestive biscuits into their cups of tea in horror at what these outrageous Apterous folk have been getting up to.

Fair enough, except that this is nothing to do with political correctness. It's about having a bit of sensitivity and, dare I say it, human decency. Because there are a shockingly high number of people out there who have been victims of rape and child sex abuse and will suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives. And, amazingly, don't find it funny. And don't expect to be confronted with people implying it's no big deal when they're in the middle of playing their favourite game.

When Chris Morris made a comedy show which used child abuse as the basis for humour, it was genuinely funny. It was also making some serious and important points. It's not that the subject can never be used as joke fodder, but as I believe Charlie has said elsewhere, the higher the offense, the funnier the joke has to be. And these are pathetically poor jokes. Also, abuse survivors had the choice whether to watch Chris Morris' show or not. The JF character on Apterous is akin to having bad child abuse jokes made by the guests on your favourite quiz show. The only choice you have is to stop watching that show, which seems a bit unfair.

Someone has spoken out in this thread as a survivor of abuse and explained that the JF character causes her distress... and not only have some people not given her a sensitive ear, but several have waded in to have a go at her. "We were provoked," I hear you cry. "She insulted us! She deserved everything she got!" Right... or you could take a step back and cut her a bit of slack. It's clearly an emotive subject for her, and it may well have been hard for her to discuss it in a public forum like this (or she would have mentioned it in the first place).

Maybe the question should be this: Is the joke so brilliant that it's worth causing distress to others, and do you really want to leave it there just to spite someone who's thrown a few mild insults around, but has surely suffered enough in this regard already?

A very well-argued post Alice. I generally agree with you, I'm firmly wanting such characters there myself as explained earlier, but I can understand why they can also be found distasteful, especially if they stir up unwanted memories. There a tension here which isn't easy to resolve.

As for the implication that I think that others are po-faced or whatever for not enjoying this stuff, I've at all times tried to be objective, have refrained from insulting other people, and have tried not to make sweeping generalisations. I'm talking about what I think, I'm not trying to characterise or caricature the thoughts of other people. All I know is what's in my head, so there's very little point in my trying to rewrite the thoughts of others, I try to provide thoughtful critique. I'd like to think that people can engage on a similar level, but as is often the case with emotive subjects in written format, this often fails to happen.

I generally agree with the sentiment of your post Alice, but can you in a nutshell say whether:

a) The character should not be allowed full stop because of who he is

or

b) The character should not be allowed in its current form because the dialogue isn't funny enough.

I'm a little unclear on your exact stance. I only ask because I haven't seen the Fritzl character (or I probably have, but just didn't pay much attention to the dialogue)

Charlie Reams wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Regardless of what good would come from remembering or forgetting, wouldn't it just be weird to forget all about him and pretend it never happened?

It would be satisfying. I take this attitude primarily to people who shoot-up high schools and such after writing in their blog how the world will remember them. Shan't! And in this particular case because he is just plain sick and disgusting and creepy.

So who decides who we forget and who we don't?

And what exactly would you say to the families of the victims Rosemary? It's all very well expunging the rapists and the murderers from the annals of history, but you're going to have to do the same to the crimes they committed and the people they committed them to. You're going to have a much harder job convincing the families of the murdered to politely forget their relatives ever existed, and ask all the rape victims if they could kindly just forget what happened to them.

My take on this...........

Fritzl, Father Xmas and such, they are funny, initially unexpected and can raise a smile or two, but only for the first few rounds, after that the shock / humour value disappears. The regulars are desensitized to it all, but for newbies it can possibly prevent them from enjoying what is a fabulous facility to play Countdown online.

It's Charlie's site, he has the right to do whatever he wants and that right is always going to be respected, but if it were me i'd lose them. The short-term gains of a chuckle or two don't outweigh the potential negatives. Personally i'm not bothered by them one bit, but i still think they could be a hinderance in the longer term.

The idea of a controversial DC guest on the apterous game is a good one in my view, but rapists and foul-mouthed Santas might be extreme in some eyes, whereas having a lesser character, someone ridiculed in the eyes of the public, might be better, eg.....Neil Hamilton, George Galloway, Dwain Chambers, Ulrika etc. You can still conjure a load of lines for them to say, but with little or no risk of offending people.

Matt Morrison wrote:And what exactly would you say to the families of the victims Rosemary? It's all very well expunging the rapists and the murderers from the annals of history, but you're going to have to do the same to the crimes they committed and the people they committed them to. You're going to have a much harder job convincing the families of the murdered to politely forget their relatives ever existed, and ask all the rape victims if they could kindly just forget what happened to them.

Not at all. There is no need to remember the perpetrators in order to honour the victims. If it were possible to enable Elisabeth Fritzl to forget what happened to her I'm sure she would welcome it, and most other rape victims would also only too gladly forget their ordeal. To expunge the names of the murderers and rapists from history does not extirpate their crimes.

A couple of months ago there was a young Asian woman as a candidate on Mastermind. In her GK round she was asked the name of the person who assassinated Gandhi. She thought for a moment and then shrugged indifferently and said "I can't remember". That's the way to treat them!

D Eadie wrote:My take on this...........

Fritzl, Father Xmas and such, they are funny, initially unexpected and can raise a smile or two, but only for the first few rounds, after that the shock / humour value disappears. The regulars are desensitized to it all, but for newbies it can possibly prevent them from enjoying what is a fabulous facility to play Countdown online.

It's Charlie's site, he has the right to do whatever he wants and that right is always going to be respected, but if it were me i'd lose them. The short-term gains of a chuckle or two don't outweigh the potential negatives. Personally i'm not bothered by them one bit, but i still think they could be a hinderance in the longer term.

The idea of a controversial DC guest on the apterous game is a good one in my view, but rapists and foul-mouthed Santas might be extreme in some eyes, whereas having a lesser character, someone ridiculed in the eyes of the public, might be better, eg.....Neil Hamilton, George Galloway, Dwain Chambers, Ulrika etc. You can still conjure a load of lines for them to say, but with little or no risk of offending people.

This tends to coincide pretty much with my view too.

Ian Volante wrote:As for the implication that I think that others are po-faced or whatever for not enjoying this stuff, I've at all times tried to be objective, have refrained from insulting other people, and have tried not to make sweeping generalisations.

None of my post was aimed at any one individual (so that bit wasn't directed at you), I was very careful to avoid getting into personal bun fights. Just generally, I get the feeling that some people like the idea of shocking the Mary Whitehouse brigade or similar, and for them that is part of the (rather infantile) fun.

Jon Corby wrote:I generally agree with the sentiment of your post Alice, but can you in a nutshell say whether:
a) The character should not be allowed full stop because of who he is
or
b) The character should not be allowed in its current form because the dialogue isn't funny enough.

I would say (a) - the character should be dropped. As I said, it's possible to have humour based on shocking subjects like child abuse, but I don't think this is the right context. Even if the jokes were better (they're currently rubbish), all you achieve is a brief titter for some, some discomfort for others, and a lot of pain for the rest. The only real basis for humour here is the aforementioned unexpected juxtaposition. And even that, as Damien says, wears off after a while. All you are left with is humourless bad taste, which will effectively alienate several people for no good reason.

Alice Moore wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:I generally agree with the sentiment of your post Alice, but can you in a nutshell say whether:
a) The character should not be allowed full stop because of who he is
or
b) The character should not be allowed in its current form because the dialogue isn't funny enough.

I would say (a) - the character should be dropped. As I said, it's possible to have humour based on shocking subjects like child abuse, but I don't think this is the right context. Even if the jokes were better (they're currently rubbish), all you achieve is a brief titter for some, some discomfort for others, and a lot of pain for the rest. The only real basis for humour here is the aforementioned unexpected juxtaposition. And even that, as Damien says, wears off after a while. All you are left with is humourless bad taste, which will effectively alienate several people for no good reason.

Cool. Again, pretty much my view.

Mmm. Bun fights.

Alice Moore wrote:So...

The Josef Fritzl character is funny because of the ridiculous and unlikely juxtaposition of Horrific Child Rapist with inoffensive teatime TV show, right? And it is precisely because he is such a monster that it's funny?

But isn't it also possible that when people see throwaway lines like "I can't beat that but I can rape my kids", they will assume that whoever runs this site thinks rape and child abuse are no big deal, and things to be made light of?

There also seems to be an implication here that anyone who finds this character offensive is humourless and po-faced, and this adds yet another element to the humour - cos you can have a bit of a giggle as you imagine the shocked faces of all those politically-correct-gone-mad Mary Whitehouse types, and get some satisfaction at the thought of them dropping their digestive biscuits into their cups of tea in horror at what these outrageous Apterous folk have been getting up to.

Fair enough, except that this is nothing to do with political correctness. It's about having a bit of sensitivity and, dare I say it, human decency. Because there are a shockingly high number of people out there who have been victims of rape and child sex abuse and will suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives. And, amazingly, don't find it funny. And don't expect to be confronted with people implying it's no big deal when they're in the middle of playing their favourite game.

When Chris Morris made a comedy show which used child abuse as the basis for humour, it was genuinely funny. It was also making some serious and important points. It's not that the subject can never be used as joke fodder, but as I believe Charlie has said elsewhere, the higher the offense, the funnier the joke has to be. And these are pathetically poor jokes. Also, abuse survivors had the choice whether to watch Chris Morris' show or not. The JF character on Apterous is akin to having bad child abuse jokes made by the guests on your favourite quiz show. The only choice you have is to stop watching that show, which seems a bit unfair.

Someone has spoken out in this thread as a survivor of abuse and explained that the JF character causes her distress... and not only have some people not given her a sensitive ear, but several have waded in to have a go at her. "We were provoked," I hear you cry. "She insulted us! She deserved everything she got!" Right... or you could take a step back and cut her a bit of slack. It's clearly an emotive subject for her, and it may well have been hard for her to discuss it in a public forum like this (or she would have mentioned it in the first place).

Maybe the question should be this: Is the joke so brilliant that it's worth causing distress to others, and do you really want to leave it there just to spite someone who's thrown a few mild insults around, but has surely suffered enough in this regard already?

Thank you for speaking up, Alice. It's good that some of those against the character are posting now.
And thanks to others who have sent PMs of support.

Although they don't deserve much consideration after what they put myself and my children through, I think I ought to make it clear that my father and ex-husband were guilty of physical (violence) and emotional abuse, and XH of sexual abuse, but not child sexual abuse. This does still make this subject difficult for me, which is also why I didn't mention my personal experience until the vote was over and the debate still raged on.

I'm glad that Damian feels that he would ditch the character if it was up to him, but I do feel that he should be concerned about possible damage to how Countdown is viewed, as outsiders and newcomers may not see the distinction between this forum and apterous, as apposed to the Countdown show, as clearly as we do. Whatever the hoops Charlie goes through to avoid copyright issues, apterous is a Countdown game really.

Julie, there's a fairly sensible debate going on in this thread, but ultimately apterous is wholly Charlie's thing and he'll do what he fucking likes with it. I personally take exception at what I perceive to be a veiled threat in your last message regarding the association between Countdown the programme, and apterous.

If you don't like it, don't fucking go there - that's what I do if something offends me on a website.

Jon Corby wrote:If you don't like it, don't fucking go there - that's what I do if something offends me on a website.

But surely this is one of the problems discussed at length above - that people will be alienated from the whole site (and prevented from enjoying the playing of the game), simply on the basis of one dodgy joke. It seems a bit unfair that anyone should have to take such extreme measures to avoid being hurt by thoughtless throwaway lines.

I didn't see any threat in what Julie said, just a (quite reasonable) suggestion that Countdown the programme could be tainted by association.

Julie T wrote:I'm glad that Damian feels that he would ditch the character if it was up to him, but I do feel that he should be concerned about possible damage to how Countdown is viewed, as outsiders and newcomers may not see the distinction between this forum and apterous, as apposed to the Countdown show, as clearly as we do. Whatever the hoops Charlie goes through to avoid copyright issues, apterous is a Countdown game really.

Man, every time I start to feel a bit sympathetic to your cause, you come out with something else idiotic. Other people in this thread have made some good arguments and you seem insistent on undoing their work. Please do yourself a favour and shut up.

Alice Moore wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:If you don't like it, don't fucking go there - that's what I do if something offends me on a website.

But surely this is one of the problems discussed at length above - that people will be alienated from the whole site (and prevented from enjoying the playing of the game), simply on the basis of one dodgy joke. It seems a bit unfair that anyone should have to take such extreme measures to avoid being hurt by thoughtless throwaway lines.

I didn't see any threat in what Julie said, just a (quite reasonable) suggestion that Countdown the programme could be tainted by association.

Charlie's not an idiot, he'll be well aware of all that, he doesn't need telling, and he'll make his choice accordingly.

By "threat", I mean that I sense an undercurrent that Julie will do what she can to get her own way.

Good arguments have been made on both sides, despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks. Consequently I have decided to withdraw the controversial character for the time being. Options for people who want further control over their guests will be added at some point, but it is likely that Fritzl at least will remain disabled by default. Thanks for all your input.

Charlie Reams wrote:Good arguments have been made on both sides, despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks. Consequently I have decided to withdraw the controversial character for the time being. Options for people who want further control over their guests will be added at some point, but it is likely that Fritzl at least will remain disabled by default. Thanks for all your input.

Prick.

Charlie Reams wrote:Good arguments have been made on both sides, despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks. Consequently I have decided to withdraw the controversial character for the time being. Options for people who want further control over their guests will be added at some point, but it is likely that Fritzl at least will remain disabled by default. Thanks for all your input.

Very sensible - thank you for listening.

Charlie Reams wrote:Good arguments have been made on both sides, despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks. Consequently I have decided to withdraw the controversial character for the time being. Options for people who want further control over their guests will be added at some point, but it is likely that Fritzl at least will remain disabled by default. Thanks for all your input.

Makes sense, there's a good chap.

Can i request Fred West as a possible alternative??

D Eadie wrote:Can i request Fred West as a possible alternative??

Don't dig all that up...

Charlie Reams wrote: I have decided to withdraw the controversial character for the time being. Options for people who want further control over their guests will be added at some point, but it is likely that Fritzl at least will remain disabled by default. Thanks for all your input.

Finally. Better late than never.

I don't really see how Jon Corby could perceive anything I said as a threat.
Especially given the number of games I play on apterous. I certainly wouldn't like to see it go.

Request a Josef Floatzel guest be added.

What about Elisabeth Fritzl as a DC guest? She hasn't done anything wrong has she?

What about Mohammed Fohammed? He could have a nickname.

In this new family friendly era, I think the obvious choices for Apterous guests are Donny and Marie Osmond. They are never short of wholesome anecdotes, and could also entertain us with their I'm A Little Bit Country routine.

Satan in DC! Please?

Charlie Reams wrote:despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks.

I dunno - maybe they'd seen it before from the guy who runs the place and thought it was OK.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I dunno - maybe they'd seen it before from the guy who runs the place and thought it was OK.

You're a cunt.

Julie T wrote:Finally. Better late than never.

And so are you.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:despite the unfortunate desire of some contributors to resort to personal attacks.

I dunno - maybe they'd seen it before from the guy who runs the place and thought it was OK.

Wonderful, Gavin!

BTW, any objections to me locking this thread, since the question has been answered and dealt with?
I'll lock it tomorrow evening unless anyone offers a reasonable argument for letting it trundle on.

Fritzl appeared in one of my games with Innis yesterday.

Julie T wrote:BTW, any objections to me locking this thread, since the question has been answered and dealt with?

Why bother, when we're all having such fun?

Charlie Reams wrote:You're a cunt

Guilty. And you're point is?

Ian Dent wrote:Fritzl appeared in one of my games with Innis yesterday.

Ssssssshhhh.

Julie T wrote:BTW, any objections to me locking this thread, since the question has been answered and dealt with?
I'll lock it tomorrow evening unless anyone offers a reasonable argument for letting it trundle on.

Don't see the point of locking any thread that's still active, unless it's utterly pointless!

Ian Volante wrote:

Julie T wrote:BTW, any objections to me locking this thread, since the question has been answered and dealt with?
I'll lock it tomorrow evening unless anyone offers a reasonable argument for letting it trundle on.

Don't see the point, of locking any thread that's still active, unless it's utterly pointless!

Ditto. Why stifle any potentially interesting discussion? If people don't want to talk about it it'll disappear anyway.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I dunno - maybe they'd seen it before from the guy who runs the place and thought it was OK.

I should probably clarify. I couldn't care less whether some idiot on an Internet forum wants to call me a "selfish shit". But I did say, right at the start of this topic, that I needed to be personally convinced by the arguments presented, and being insulting probably isn't the smartest way to do that.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Ian Dent wrote:Fritzl appeared in one of my games with Innis yesterday.

Ssssssshhhh.

Is it back, Charlie? Or is something awry?

This is sick and wrong Charlie.

Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl):

1) click onto 'user control panel' top left of screen
2) go into manage 'friends and foes'
3) put 'Matthew Green' into 'add foes' box

His posts (along with his avatar) will then not appear for you.
Instead it will say something like 'this post is by Matthew Green on your ignore list'.
You can then click on it if you do want to read it.

Julie T wrote:Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl):

1) click onto 'user control panel' top left of screen
2) go into manage 'friends and foes'
3) put 'Matthew Green' into 'add foes' box

His posts (along with his avatar) will then not appear for you.
Instead it will say something like 'this post is by Matthew Green on your ignore list'.
You can then click on it if you do want to read it.

, I'm sure people can work that out themselves!

Julie T wrote:Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl)

Is that him? I didn't recognise him without the ring binder. He looks a bit like George Galloway, doesn't he?

Jon Corby wrote:

Julie T wrote:Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl)

Is that him? I didn't recognise him without the ring binder. He looks a bit like George Galloway, doesn't he?

I thought it was Gary Male.

Jon Corby wrote:Is that him? I didn't recognise him without the ring binder.

He does look a lot handsomer with the ring binder, I agree. He was already a very ugly character before his crimes were known, which makes me all the more sorry for his family. I confidently expect that Matthew will get tired of looking like that before long.

I do find it slightly irritating that Julie explained who the avatar represented so that people could feel properly offended by it. Either it speaks for itself or it doesn't.

Ok so I had a bad hangover that day and looked a bit groggy. No need to take the piss.

Matthew Green wrote:Ok so I had a bad hangover that day and looked a bit groggy. No need to take the piss.

If a hangover makes you look like that I think you need to change your brand.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:I do find it slightly irritating that Julie explained who the avatar represented so that people could feel properly offended by it. Either it speaks for itself or it doesn't.

This.

(Also, what if that *is* what Matthew looks like?)

Michael Wallace wrote: This.

Michael Wallace also wrote:(Also, what if that *is* what Matthew looks like?)

If it is, maybe he should be deleted as well.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: This.

That was me saying I agree with what you said.

Jon Corby wrote:

Julie T wrote:Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl)

Is that him? I didn't recognise him without the ring binder. He looks a bit like George Galloway, doesn't he?

Someone else has the avatar pic of George Galloway, can't remember who.
Don't see the resemblance myself, apart from the bushy eyebrows.
I think GG looks rather dashing, but maybe I'm a bit strange that way!

Ian Volante wrote:

Julie T wrote:Info for any of the people who voted against the character, who wish not to see Matthew's current avatar (pic of Josef Fritzl):

1) click onto 'user control panel' top left of screen
2) go into manage 'friends and foes'
3) put 'Matthew Green' into 'add foes' box

His posts (along with his avatar) will then not appear for you.
Instead it will say something like 'this post is by Matthew Green on your ignore list'.
You can then click on it if you do want to read it.

, I'm sure people can work that out themselves!

This forum 'skin' or whatever you call it, is certainly very different to forums I've joined in the past.
It has a lot of different features that I certainly haven't encountered before, and this particular feature was explained to me.
Just because you're techy, please don't assume that others won't have found this useful, especially if they wouldn't have thought this feature possible.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote: This.

That was me saying I agree with what you said.

Thank you. But could you not have put it a trifle less succinctly?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Thank you. But could you not have put it a trifle less succinctly?

It's a fairly common way of saying something like that on forums (similar to IAWTP), I often forget that not everyone is especially familiar with these sorts of things, sorry.

(Amusingly, I was originally going to put IAWTP, but then thought better of it, thinking people might not understand what I meant if I did that )

Michael Wallace wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Thank you. But could you not have put it a trifle less succinctly?

It's a fairly common way of saying something like that on forums (similar to IAWTP), I often forget that not everyone is especially familiar with these sorts of things, sorry.
(Amusingly, I was originally going to put IAWTP, but then thought better of it, thinking people might not understand what I meant if I did that )

You guys and your blimmin' abbreviations. I'm down with abbreviations being used for genuine time-saving purposes, but you're always treading a fine line between saving a miniscule amount of time, and wasting a fairly decent sized chunk of time if a couple of people have to ask "what?".

I reckon "IAWTP" is rubbish, as no one would ever say "I agree with this post" in full. They'd simply say "I agree" which is faster to type, read, AND understand than "IAWTP".
...sits back and waits for someone to reply with just "IAWTP"...

Julie T wrote:Someone else has the avatar pic of George Galloway, can't remember who.

Hmm, I wonder why I said "I thought it was Gary Male" above?