Dealing with Bailiffs Harassment

never-in-doubt

Quentin wrote: »

You are naive to think otherwise!

Previously the link was contained in his sig (this also against the rules), and was removed and replaced with this message:

This new wheeze of putting his link in every post is just a cynical way of abusing the no links in sigs rules as well as the no advertising rules.

I'm anything but naive thank you very muchly! :eek:

However you fail to spot that it was in fact Roberto that posted the link initially - he has no affiliation to the firm whatsoever, and for the record I don't follow people and see their posts/sigs unless they post on the same thread.

Naivety and not seeing something are two separate issues

Quentin

I made it clear my comments were directed at the guy breaking the rules (not Roberto!) by putting a quote from the rule breaker in my post.

So why are you pursuing this line?

RobertoMoir

I'm not sure its really abuse to post a link to a helpful website, regardless of who owns the site.

I'd totally agree that it was uncalled for if it was included in a random post about ocelot husbandry over in the moneysavers' arms forums, but I think a link to a website giving advice about bailiffs is the exact opposite of abusive when its in a reply to someone asking for advice about bailiffs.

Quentin

No. It's clearly an abuse of the no-advertising rules.

The website is a commercial venture, and charges for providing templates and answering bailiff related questions.

never-in-doubt

Quentin wrote: »

I made it clear my comments were directed at the guy breaking the rules (not Roberto!) by putting a quote from the rule breaker in my post.

So why are you pursuing this line?

I am pursuing this line cos you called me naive (you don;t have a clue obviously) and moreso cos Roberto posted the link originally and then someone came and offered a password to which you said was breaking the rules... My argument is that Roberto sent the link then someone else came and gave a password to the same link.

To me that is helpful - obviously you have an issue somewhere but please leave it off this helpful thread.

Quentin

You were "naive" by suggesting that the link posted in all herbie's posts might not be to herbie's website.

My post that you seized on was aimed at herbie (who I quoted in the post), and you have chosen to go banging on about Roberto who I have never mentioned!

And now you post abuse aimed at me, then ask me to "leave it off". You seemingly just got involved to make trouble - my post was aimed at pointing out to herbie that trying to get round the no advertising links in sigs rule by instead inserting a highlighted link in every post is just a cynical way to beat the no advertising rules she fell foul of when her sig was removed!

Tink82

Quentin wrote: »

No. It's clearly an abuse of the no-advertising rules.

The website is a commercial venture, and charges for providing templates and answering bailiff related questions.

It is, but she has given out the pass word to me and at least one other person so we don't pay...

Tink82

Herbie21 wrote: »

I have sent you a pm with the password to download any documents that you require.
.
www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk

Thank you! :beer: very kind of you, may want to ignore my PM then, it makes sense now!!

never-in-doubt

Quentin wrote: »

You were "naive" by suggesting that the link posted in all herbie's posts might not be to herbie's website.

My post that you seized on was aimed at herbie (who I quoted in the post), and you have chosen to go banging on about Roberto who I have never mentioned!

And now you post abuse aimed at me, then ask me to "leave it off". You seemingly just got involved to make trouble - my post was aimed at pointing out to herbie that trying to get round the no advertising links in sigs rule by instead inserting a highlighted link in every post is just a cynical way to beat the no advertising rules she fell foul of when her sig was removed!

Right, since you struggle to grasp things i'll resort to the childish method and spell it out for you!

1. I am not naive - there was never any indication that Herbie owns the website and therefore there was nothing naive about it whatsoever (do you have proof it is their site?)

2. The post I seized on was because you were being clever over nothing - this thread isn't to start petty fights and your input was a load of nonsense thus I picked you up cos the bottom line is that someone has benefited from Herbies password - he never put the link up first!

3. I mention Roberto cos you still fail to grasp that Roberto in fact placed the link, then at a later time Herbie offered a password therefore no advertising whatsoever.

4. I never seen Herbies signature - so why keep on about it? Maybe they just support the website - who knows. Still, you aint the MSE police so ignore it.

5. Why would I sabbotage my own thread to cause trouble? Have you considered that little aspect?

I am the OP!

Quentin

Tink82 wrote: »

she has given out the pass word to me and at least one other person so we don't pay...

We all know you got the password sent by pm, as she put a post up just to tell us that! (And cynically used the post to again post the (highlighted) link to their site)

This type of "special deal" (if it is one) for MSE members is covered in the "no advertising" rules:

MSE_Martin wrote:

If you think you have a genuinely good deal please contact a Board Guide for the board you’d like to post it on. If they agree with you they’ll contact the MSE Team and it will be considered.

And in order to give out their password to people here it also involves them abusing the pm system, which cannot be used for advertising!

Amongst their various fees they do normally charge £5 for the password to visitors to their website. (Or £10 if you want to ask a question as well!)

No other professional who contributes to MSE stoops to this sort of "emotional" spamming!