the problem with fake accounts

bwfc71 wrote:damn can't remember if I am logged in as Breadman or Natasha - of am I Amos, at the moment?



Confirmed - I am Amos!

Amos should definitely be banned, clearly a fake account.

Sluffy, just a quick one.

None of this boils down to me "winning" where Scott's concerned and I'm a little disappointed that you seem to think it does.

You publicly asked for my opinion on the matter, I offered it and you then ignored it because it was at odds with your own agenda and Scott's now back.

I don't feel as though I've "won" anything, in fact I feel like I've lost something where the site's concerned because I no longer feel as inclined to get involved like I used to.

But, as I have been at great pains to stress throughout this whole sorry saga, it's not about individual posters, it's about the principles involved - they're what's important, not the people.

Can we draw a line under all this now and get back to being pretend internet warriors and talking bollocks please?
it would be a big shame to this site if Breadman feels he can't contribute as much as he normally does.

Norpig wrote:
it would be a big shame to this site if Breadman feels he can't contribute as much as he normally does.

Can I just clarify that I wasn't making a big, girly, drama queen statement before, I was just being honest.

I'm just one bloke who posts on here, the site doesn't need me and I'm really not important.

I'll still post on here just not as much probably.

There have been a few disquieting signs on here recently about where the site's headed and, if I'm honest, it's starting to put me off a bit (and I know I'm not alone in this regard).

But as I keep saying, this isn't about me, it's about what's best for Nuts.

I'm still angry Mum!!!!!!!


And my wife definitely is!!!!!!!

No funnier the second time Bryan.

and a happy new year

bryan458 wrote:I'm still angry Mum!!!!!!!


And my wife definitely is!!!!!!!

No you are not, you are just a very naughty boy!!



No retreat, no looking back - all guns blazing...

Breadman wrote:Sluffy, just a quick one.

None of this boils down to me "winning" where Scott's concerned and I'm a little disappointed that you seem to think it does.

You publicly asked for my opinion on the matter, I offered it and you then ignored it because it was at odds with your own agenda and Scott's now back.

I don't feel as though I've "won" anything, in fact I feel like I've lost something where the site's concerned because I no longer feel as inclined to get involved like I used to.

But, as I have been at great pains to stress throughout this whole sorry saga, it's not about individual posters, it's about the principles involved - they're what's important, not the people.

A principle as far as I'm aware is 'a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning'.

We don't want abusive behaviour on here and so Scott was banned.

So far so good.

However if because of the effect of the ban his behaviour changes, the ban is no longer necessarily then required to be enforced.

People get punished for doing wrong by being sent to prison, where hopefully their behaviour becomes changed and when they return into society they conform to the norms and behaviour of it.

Otherwise the alternative is once people go to prison, they never let them out again, or equally banning someone from Nuts means they are never allowed back on here - ever!

That can't be right surely?

I do believe I have listened to you on this matter, indeed I directly quoted what you've said previously -

Breadman wrote:
The simplest way to let this play out would appear to be for me to officially sanction his return (even though it's not really my call and I don't want that "power") and see what happens.

I agree fully with this insightful assessment of yours.

So as far as I can see we have adhered to our own priciples, Scott has changed his behaviour in order to be allowed back on here and we have gone along with your own assessment of what we should do next.

So as far as I'm concerned the site is being fair and reasonable to everybody.

Scott did wrong, suffered the consequences and promised to changed his behaviour to be allowed back.

The best thing for our forum - and I'm sure everyone will agree - is for you BOTH to contribute to it (without the abuse that was there between you before).

Well that is the position we are now at.

It's now equally up to Scott to see if he can post without abusing people and being banned for good, and for you to post on a forum with Scott being a part of it.

There's plenty of ways you can avoid each other on here if you feel you have to but I would hope that you are both reasonable enough to draw a line under what as gone on before and move on from there.

I believe that is fair and just to all.

I think most other people will too.

You keep appealing for me to "be reasonable" but, if I'm honest, why should I have to make that effort?

He fucked up by targeting me out of the blue one night when he got pissed, started dragging up shit from a year ago which, as far as I knew, had been resolved and consigned to history, he got warned, ignored the warning, got warned again but chose to still ignore it and so got banned when the majority of the site's owners voted for it.

He then spent a week or so slagging Nuts and everybody involved with it off on Burnden Aces with his alter ego Angry Dad, subsequently realised that BA is deader than Thatcher's fanny and so decided to start e-mailing you, begging to come back with the promise that he'd behave.

I'm not a petty fucker but this one's really starting to stick in my craw now because of the way you have "handled" it.

At no point has this cunt apologised to me for his attacks - all he's done is said that he'd "avoid" me in future.

Thus implying that I am also in some way complicit in what's gone down.

But I'm not.

He got pissed one night and started targeting me, not the other way round.

I'm honestly getting royally fucked off now with the way you keep trying to make out that I've played a significant part in all this shit, just because you don't like the idea of banning members because you're desperate to keep the numbers up on this site.

Fuck it...in for a penny and all that - the way you had a pop at Doffy last week was disgraceful and I honestly used to think you were better than that but I'm no longer so sure.

I've had three PM's tonight from regular contributors to this site (check it if you think I'm making it up - I'm sure that facility must be available to you as one of the site's co-owners) who have all offered their support and said that they're not impressed with the way things appear to be being handled on here at the moment and it's making them think twice about continuing their patronage of this site.

This is all getting a bit sad now.

You've got Scott back, as you always wanted, but at what cost?

Watch the post count over the next few weeks and weigh up if it was really worth it.

Sorry Sluffy, but I'm honestly very disappointed by the way this has played out because it's ruined the whole Nuts experience for me.

If you're really after a site which is predominantly made up of comments from fake accounts owned by the same two or three blokes and previously banned members, carry on.

If you seriously want to grow the site and get new blood in, stop pandering to dickheads who aren't capable of understanding how this shit works and who treat it like the fucking playground.

He's laughing at you - you do get that, don't you?

All that i'm going to say on the matter is, around 12 months ago Breadman got sent a message from someone saying someone is going to come round to Breadmans house and do a Cregan on him, or something like that.

Now Breadman publicly accused me, which it wasn't me , and he found out later that it wasn't me, then he apologised to me, then i accepted 'after Sluffy acted as peacemaker'.

But now the tables turned again and i got banned for giving Breadman abuse 12 months down the line , i apologised to him and to the forum, but he's not accepting mine, after i accepted his 12 months ago.

For some reason he can't let it go, he can't move on.

that's all i'm willing to say on the matter, as everyone is bored senseless with it all.

I've had enough. From now on I will presume everyone is a fake account, and that I am the only genuine person on here.

And me

Concubine - definition....... A porcupine with a big nose.

jussi22 wrote:All that i'm going to say on the matter is, around 12 months ago Breadman got sent a message from someone saying someone is going to come round to Breadmans house and do a Cregan on him, or something like that.

Now Breadman publicly accused me, which it wasn't me , and he found out later that it wasn't me, then he apologised to me, then i accepted 'after Sluffy acted as peacemaker'.

But now the tables turned again and i got banned for giving Breadman abuse 12 months down the line , i apologised to him and to the forum, but he's not accepting mine, after i accepted his 12 months ago.

For some reason he can't let it go, he can't move on.

that's all i'm willing to say on the matter, as everyone is bored senseless with it all.

Neither can you, PMing me on WW, fucking childish.

I only have one account, can't be me.

Sluffy the Devil child.

I think The Fakirs



Should just Fuck Off