Llz tab

oldbaldman

Oh, I am not allowed to post a link!

It's in residential lettings - under dogs, OP is blahblah.

Have a read.:)

Some of the comments and advice being offered on other threads are not without risk, or vacuous IMHO.

obm

wilfred3

jamie11 wrote: »

The Quality of advice from at least one of the topic experts there was like wading through treacle.

Now that jta, and mtg's 'Dad's Army' quote made me laugh out loud.
I shall remember that one. The combination of the two makes me think of half a dozen 'Corporal Jones' being enlisted by LLZ.

jamie11

Warn the dog that if it does not stop barking? And if it does not stop, then what?

If the dog is not named on the TA then it is a lodger of the T, who can tell the dog to leave, giving reasonable notice of course.

pm

PM I cannot believe how mischievous you have turned out to be

Mind_the_Gap

jamie11 wrote: »

PM I cannot believe how mischievous you have turned out to be

I'll second that, pm! After I posted my comment about the quality of advice I felt a bit guilty because I know yours isn't...but I'm confused now.

Werdnal

You think you are confused? Take a look at post #224 on "that thread" over on LLZ - Very strange! I hear Xfiles music again .........

rodent

Werdnal wrote: »

You think you are confused? Take a look at post #224 on "that thread" over on LLZ - Very strange! I hear Xfiles music again .........

Very Odd - Don't know what that is all about !

rodent

Mind_the_Gap wrote: »

Do you think it was that thread which did it, Rodent?

There was no escape ...after you & LC cornered him on the Jewish/Asian issue ...if i were a betting man i'd have me money on it.

....or the "cent" ...or combo...


Guess we will never know !

Mind_the_Gap

I am still no further on in my quest to discover which thread/post it was which led to my being banned. I cannot believe it was the posts in which Rodent and I had an academic linguistic discussion about the widely different semantic connotations of words with only one letter's difference between them. I assumed the 'c' word I used purely as an example, you understand, would appear with asterisks inserted by LLZ if they objected to it; that's what happens with the 'f' word, I've noticed : the automatic censor gets to it first. The fact that it didn't suggests either that LLZ does not regard the 'c' word as in the same category s the 'f' word, or that LLZ is inconsistent in its approach to taboo language.

Which leaves two other possibilities (as far as I can see). The first is that 'Identity Theft' thread in which I (and others, most convincingly Lawcruncher), try to establish the inconsistency of Jeffrey's identifying his alleged petrol station scammers by their ethnic group, when he objected to someone else doing exactly the same thing in relation to a dodgy landlord who happened to be Jewish. Several posts have bene removed from that thread.

The second is the 'Royal Wedding' thread, in which I raised the question of who gave a wotsit about why Prince Edward's children were not officially called Prince this or Princess that. Jeffrey's well-known for his Royalist tendencies and he's entitled to them, of course - but he has taken exception to anti-monarchist views in the past and he seems to take any criticism of the Royals as a personal affront.

However, I insulted nobody in neither of those threads (which is what I am supposed to have done, according to the Editor's reply to my email asking for reasons for my being banned). Also, that email did not mention inappropriate language - it said only that I had been insulting people and 'abusing the site' by posting about things 'unrelated to the purposes of the forums'. If that is a banning matter, then surely everyone who's ever posted in TAB should be banned including Jeffrey who regularly starts threads there which are nothing to do with property/lettings?

If anyone else can suggest which posts are at the heart of all this then I should be interested to know. Otherwise, I am left with the feeling that I've been banned on the basis of purely subjective (possibly accumulative) dislike and a sense that I have outlived my usefulness on the forum.

rodent

Mind_the_Gap wrote: »

I am still no further on in my quest to discover which thread/post it was which led to my being banned. I cannot believe it was the posts in which Rodent and I had an academic linguistic discussion about the widely different semantic connotations of words with only one letter's difference between them. I assumed the 'c' word I used purely as an example, you understand, would appear with asterisks inserted by LLZ if they objected to it; that's what happens with the 'f' word, I've noticed : the automatic censor gets to it first. The fact that it didn't suggests either that LLZ does not regard the 'c' word as in the same category s the 'f' word, or that LLZ is inconsistent in its approach to taboo language.

Which leaves two other possibilities (as far as I can see). The first is that 'Identity Theft' thread in which I (and others, most convincingly Lawcruncher), try to establish the inconsistency of Jeffrey's identifying his alleged petrol station scammers by their ethnic group, when he objected to someone else doing exactly the same thing in relation to a dodgy landlord who happened to be Jewish. Several posts have bene removed from that thread.

The second is the 'Royal Wedding' thread, in which I raised the question of who gave a wotsit about why Prince Edward's children were not officially called Prince this or Princess that. Jeffrey's well-known for his Royalist tendencies and he's entitled to them, of course - but he has taken exception to anti-monarchist views in the past and he seems to take any criticism of the Royals as a personal affront.

However, I insulted nobody in neither of those threads (which is what I am supposed to have done, according to the Editor's reply to my email asking for reasons for my being banned). Also, that email did not mention inappropriate language - it said only that I had been insulting people and 'abusing the site' by posting about things 'unrelated to the purposes of the forums'. If that is a banning matter, then surely everyone who's ever posted in TAB should be banned including Jeffrey who regularly starts threads there which are nothing to do with property/lettings?

If anyone else can suggest which posts are at the heart of all this then I should be interested to know. Otherwise, I am left with the feeling that I've been banned on the basis of purely subjective (possibly accumulative) dislike and a sense that I have outlived my usefulness on the forum.

..perhaps it's all a calculated plan to get everyone fired up and the forum buzzing which has backfired !?


Perhaps they are assumming all will be fine again in ten days ?

The banned thread has a lot of posts which could be acted upon by the moderator - the links to other forums can't be helpful to LLZ image - very liitle mod activity going on - which is rather strange after Friday 13th (!!!) events.

Forum is generally quieter on w/e so maybe "they" will reassess on Monday...but i think it highly unlikely that ban will be lifted b4 10 days is up !

LLZ forum will survive regardless of wether we all go back or not....


I would have to agree with your logic and conclusion with half the sentiment (my bolding)- ....can't see any basis for outliving "usefulness" tho;)

pizzle84

What is "that thread"??