See Hear Talk  permalink

SEE HEAR message board to go ?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 61
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    The OUCH message board is due to be taken offline very shortly, does anyone know if SEE HEAR is to go as well, or, is SEE HEAR NOT an message board ? Read OUCH (Disabled), and see the campaign to keep the boards, and the opposition to dangerous social sites the BBC wants to dump us on...

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tim (U14258428) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Face-book has major privacy issues, amongst other things.

    Twitter has a maximum character limit of 140 characters - hardly the right place for a proper debate.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Quite right, FB usually the place for people who haven't really much to say smiley - smiley Many deaf have left it anyway, including a very pro-social site deafie who used to post here and whose name is unworthy to be mentioned... who spent a lot of time advocating FB and attacking us, only to find he'd been ignored, and told to take a hike by the mods lol... Now he's at twitter saying even less.... and admitted FB screwed him. Social sites are totally unsafe for disabled, deaf and vulnerable adults, who would be at the mercy of predators and away from the safe forums at OUCH. The signs aren't good and the petition is suss I think because they are using FB to get support, DOH !!!! why not just stick your head IN the lions mouth ?

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Bringing the deaf community together again, are we?

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Same old... the petition site to save OUCH was ridiculed already by people outside, who said the petitioners were made up and disabled weren't entitled to BBC access. Pretty damning proof that the desire to stay at the BBC was more than just an focus point of disability viewpoints and issues, but was an safe area too, the primary reason for staying. We've all made issue on BBC moderation but compared with twitter or FB an really safe place for vulnerable people, and a way to remove people who just log in to make trouble.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Thursday, 9th June 2011

    Finaly! Sense prevails! Best news I have read in ages. Well done, BBC for finally taking the decision to close the messageboards, something I have campaigned for a long time since the boards hosted far too many Trolls and spread far too many lies and deceit and was nothing but a battleground for cyber-bullies.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Adding your diatribes helps that situation, does it?

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    This type of posting is why the boards should STAY, the pro-active moderation (As he has already experienced!), will stop persons like this using message boards to attack other deaf. The shameful thing is this aggressive person is a ... moderator ! the fact he and 2 others talk to themselves mostly, should tell him where he is actually at. He doesn't want to be subject to moderation himself, something the rest of us are willing to do because we want to feel safe. Who is the troll here ? Pro-active moderation suggests he isn't wanted. He is he to stir, to ridicule to attack he has no interest other in this board and hasn't contributed anything meaningful.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Hmmm. Just who is doing the attacking, MM?
    Your last post has done nothing but attack me, calling me aggressive, calling me a troll and insinuating I have been pro-actively moderated when this clearly isn't the case. I have never received anything from the BBC to this end.

    All I did was post that I was in full agreement with the BBC's decision to close these boards because of trolls, lies and deceit and I suspect you know full well who the trolls are and what lies and deceit I refer to.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by tishcat (U14708219) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    i for one, will miss this board. There are only so many places of interest to go to online.
    I found this site whilst looking up SEE HEAR, the tv programme and with it being under the auspices of the BBC, i felt that it would be free of these virus things and other stuff that spoils computing.
    When i first started reading there seemed to be some sort of ongoing debate, that had reached something like 1000 posts. I should really take the time to read them posts i think but was put off by all the comments about moderation and references to posts that weren't there..
    Anyhow, my routine seems to be to check out something like 5-6 websites devoted to deafness and its sad that there will be one less.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 9.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I couldn't POSSIBLY comment... much smiley - smiley

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by tishcat (U14708219) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I couldn't POSSIBLY comment... much smiley - smiley  my appolgies for the frivolous use of a 4 letter word.
    It will not happen again cos from now on when i hit my thumb with a hammer, i'm going to shout crikey instead!
    Only joshing of course.
    I don't own a hammer.
    BTW the word i used rhymes with COUCH....hope this clears up any misunderstandings by those who haven't got a clue what i'm on about. And to those who do, that is the first time i have been moderated in my life so once again my sincere appolgies

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    There is an disruptor joing the topic probably pressing triangles all over the place to make issues for others. These are the problems, we want to preserve OUCH for, because the safer moderation (triangle addicts apart !) can remove them, if we are on twitter or another god-forsaken un-regulated media, then deaf and disabled will be attacked at every level, the OUCH campaign on the disability side puts up a petition to save OUCH, and the trolling vultures are already gathering to attack and ridicule commentators of the disability world who have made real strides over the years, but who are now getting "Good riddance, disabled shouldn't have BBC access rights..I campaigned against the SH board for years carp...glad its going etc",and it doesn't stop there as they stalk contributors online and attack them there too. This proves conclusively the demand for OUCH to STAY is based on a very real fear disabled and vulnerable will just be subject to harassment and abuse anywhere else. They didn't feel safe or comfortable on social media and they are right. Since the news broke, these trolling vultures continue to gather these boards.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I don't understand why you maintain that OUCH is the best place and best moderated because - you're still here, aren't you. If it was the best moderated, you'd be banned by now.

    The other forums, including D4L are the better forums because they got it right and banned you.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Who cares what these saddo's think? So the messages have been removed? Well that proves they have read them!

    If the BBC can't even protect its readership from the common as muck trouble makers then maybe it's time they called it a day. Lack of skill has always been their problem.

    A lot of people have moved to the Out of Hours forum. There is a deaf board in there as well as the disabled one.
    I promise that nothing like this shambles will be allowed to happen over there!
    Stuff the Beeb. They let us all down when they allowed this forum to be trolled to death.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    It's clear this other person just wants to flame. The topic was about the SEE HEAR/OUCH boards and not about sites elsewhere. He has posted 3 or 4 times NONE of the comments were about the issue and most went on to attack people personally his claim he has always campaigned against is also rubbish,he has targeted some people here for personal abuse that's all, then gone on to OUCH boards suggesting the disabled there are to blame as well. Cornish Andy's site is indeed very well moderated. The issue is more about choice, many OUCH contributors want to stay where they feel comfortable. Many of them (and not just MM), have been banned at other sites, but without knowing why it's meaningless hearsay. They like myself have contributed under the BBC guidelines since day one, if I wasn't playing to the rules I would have been out. This isn't twitter where you can say whatever you want to whoever you want, more power to OUCH....

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    The BBC should long ago have put a stop to behaviour of this kind, but they haven't. They have freely allowed people to misuse the reporting system to silence people with whom they disagree. That alone indicates that the moderation isn't working. Furthermore this has been going on since 2005 yet nothing has been done.

    At the same time we are constantly harassed about rule breaking. Is it any wonder that nobody has any respect for the BBC staff when they behave like this?

    Apparently the Your Able forums closed because of repeated trolls and threats on the forum. This was actually poor moderation. The moderators have every right to exclude disruptive people to protect the majority but there are still a lot of people who try to fool the system and harass other users.
    A good moderator will spot that and deal with it. Your Able obviously didn't have good moderators smiley - sadface

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Can we actually name 6 sites online that does ? The fact remains many disabled on the OUCH board felt safer there than online elsewhere. It's their choice and most want to stay, many are activists, they don't squeeze 140 chars of complete carp to talk about cupcakes or such. Like me, a number are from other banned areas, people with strong view always risk this. They are active disabled or deaf, they stand up for what they believe in, they prefer OUCH to shallow social areas like twitter. Far from OUCH protecting a shed load of people who would otherwise be banned everywhere else, OUCH has been a beacon of self expression and in reality has allowed these disabled a voice, and the protection to express that voice against wholesale personal abuse. It isn't perfect, no moderation can be, but if you compare OUCH with Twitter or FB then Fort Knox springs to mind ! Frankly Cornish Andy, and apart from your board there is nowhere else these disabled can express what they feel in any safety, we are in effect now getting hate mail from these twittering nerds with nothing better to do and obviously no life of their own to live. Perhaps the BBC letting it all go so the whole thing drowns in open slanging, thus then justifying the closure. IT's an very cowardly approach to the issue,but where have we seen this approach before.....

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by tishcat (U14708219) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    well, as i was saying, thats one site less to go to. When i got the computer online at first, i was at a loss what to look for cos it was a bit like having a set of encyclopaedias.
    At the moment i read 3 sites (soon to be 2) connected with deafness and very little else. If it wasn't for facebook and to a lesser extent, twitter i would be switching on and off in seconds.
    Is it all just a big hype, this computer business? Even when we agree upon anything, how many people are reading?
    Maybe i have somehow missed the golden age of computing, where people bothered to post and it all had some kind of relevence.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Sunny Clouds (U14258963) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    I think Ouch is important and See Hear is important.

    There are times when I get totally hacked off with MM or Andy or Tim or whoever, but at least here I get to read their various views in a place that is moderated. It was good of Andy to set up another site, and I know that it is popular, but I do think that it's reasonable to want Ouch and its forums.

    Maybe Ouch could be revamped, with See Hear giving way to something like Sensory Impairments and having other areas for physical impairments and mental impairments plus a general discussion area. That's just one idea. There are all sorts of things that can be done to change things to make the board more popular and relevant to more people rather than simply abolishing it.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by saltbar (U6448282) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Hello all

    This is a bold move by the BBC and, if I read it correctly, Ouch is moving onto a different platform so it is not disappearing - just moving with time. It is high time and I applaud this decision. Therefore there is no loss to be had here.

    In some ways, it will open up the debate (maybe not in so many words but diversity of views are equally important) as more people are now populating the social networks these days than the forums, which has seen it better days.

    To date, I have not seen any flame wars of significance on the social media, maybe a few spats here and there. It seems the unmoderated approach have instilled a sense of responsibility for any social networker wishing to engage.

    So, I think it will be an interesting challenge for people to get on with their fellow debaters despite their differences. Adopting an immovable viewpoint without conceding or being magnanimous can only get you so far before descending into a flame war.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by tishcat (U14708219) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    you know for all the arguing and accusations, we seemed to have missed the point. The site will close (i think...cos who knows whats true online?) cos of costcutting.
    Yet no one seems to have slagged of the government? Or am i wrong?

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by saltbar (U6448282) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    Well, to be honest, I am not surprised that they have moved onto the popular medium because Facebook account for approx 60% of the internet traffic in the UK.

    As for slagging off the government, I do it on Twitter where it is more visible and viral.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Sunny Clouds (U14258963) on Friday, 10th June 2011

    The BBC doesn't have to close Ouch for people to use social networks. People that want to use them already do. However, they are not the same thing as a messageboard, and in particular are not the same thing as a messageboard set up with accessibility features.

    Meanwhile, I have been on FB for quite some while now and have yet to see a page with the functionality of Ouch. Maybe I've got my settings wrong. I've visited the BBC Ouch FB page and it certainly doesn't work anything like this. It seems to have adverts in the middle of the list of what I would think of as discussions and you have to scroll and scroll to find them and they don't have easy headings to read.

    Here's a typical thread heading "Hey Ouch Bbc, you're #1! You and I have the most friends in common of all my friends. Who's #1 on your list?
    fb108.apps.quizical.me". What sort of discussion is that?

    Also, I clicked on something on a thread that looked like a list of the replies and got something totally different.

    I want serious discussion about disability, not half a page taken up with photographs and peculiar adverts and quizzes.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    I would suggest you either have your settings wrong, or are not using it correctly, or both.

    I have read some silly scareMMongering froMM a certain person who reckons both Twitter and Facebook are bad for the deaf. Why just the deaf? Why not the hearing too? *sigh*

    If that was the case, how come has a certain now famous person who goes by the name of Hayley Sadler set up a very successful and popular Facebook page for deaf people with thousands of followers, many of them deaf?

    Facebook is not actually that bad if you take the time to learn it and use it properly. Yes, the privacy settings are a bad issue but not an impossibility to learn. You can also block and ignore people you don't wish to see or hear from. If you control a Facebook Group or Page, YOU are the Moderator and therefore have full control over who joins and posts on it.

    So you see, Facebook is not that bad after all. MM tried to join my Twitter and Facebook but I blocked him immediately. Simples.

    Social Networking is the way forward. Forums are dying. Fact.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Tim (U14258428) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    I like Twitter but it doesn't do what the Message boards do. On Twitter, you can do lots of things - campaign, get in touch with deaf organisations (and find out in the process which ones are good and poor!) socialise, pass on information (links to news, blogs, etc) but what you can't do is have a proper debate - the 140 character limit simply does not allow for it. That is why I still come to Ouch!

    You cannot call the discussions with Jackie Ballard on Twitter "debate" because they set the agenda beforehand and it's easy to brush people off with unsatisfactory one or two line answers.

    I don't know whether FB can facilitate proper debate, but I don't not feel that I have to get into that because the privacy issues and misuse of personal information cause me and others to avoid it like the plague.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Two things.....

    Twitter isn't really limited to 140 chars. You can use Twitlonger or better still, Tweetdeck or Seesmic or similar platform which allow longer Tweets.

    Facebook privacy isn't a problem if you use it wisely and set it up correctly. After all, you don't *have* to give them your real details, your age, your phone number, your address etc. In fact, you don't have to give them anything at all.

    And no one ever said the RNID Twit-Ins were a Debate. They were always Q&A sessions.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    The main point of the topic which I put up was that he OUCH site was being closed by the BBC, it then rapidly deteriorated as twitter spoilers came in actually blaming MM, Andy and Tim for the closure decision. It just went personal and the issue of disabled online at the BBC Ouch got lost, and the regular spoilers who have logged out of SH because their obsession with attacking MM at any level actual contributed just as much to people leaving, again, this is NOT the issue the issue is disabled online at the BBC being forced out to areas that are unsuitable for them to use, and, they don't WANT to use them so discussion is on THAT basis not, yippee it means MM has another one less avenue to vent his spleen, they must really hate me to suggest it is OK for online disabled to get the pouch so long as I get it too. As for other areas like FB/Twitter, it makes NO difference ig half the planet us it, the disabled at OUCH wanted THIS area to communicate with, so they can't ? because it s more important to get rid of me, jeez...! I just think it shows a considerable degree of real paranoia personally. IT also shows why many deaf won't JOIN these twittering idiots or facebook abusers and prefer here. There are vulnerable people at OUCH, it is sad the deafies here are putting the boot in, real hate....real nastiness. Why would anyone celebrate an avenue of expression by disabled is to be got rid of ? If they think for a second deaf here are going to go to twitter or the 2 deaf sites that still exist, forget it. Your cards are marked already.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Tim (U14258428) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Isn't that three things?

    In fact, you don't have to give them anything at all. 

    By having nothing to do with FB, that's what I am currently doing. The only way you can avoid giving them anything is by typing in nothing - which includes the registration form and not ticking permission / 'read and agree' boxes.

    And no one ever said the RNID Twit-Ins were a Debate. They were always Q&A sessions. 

    That was my point; I'm saying that they cannot be called a debate. On the other point, I've heard of Tweetdeck and similar but I'm yet to see a Twebate (just made that up) where two people who disagree on an issue thrash it out with a rally of Tweetdecks. So in my opinion, Twitter doesn't measure up like a message-board does.

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Each to their own.
    Attitudes like that re FB are often from people who are too scared to try it, have never tried it, are too stubborn to try it or just plain don't understand it and give up without persevering with it.

    As for Twebates, several of us have debates on Twitter regularly using multi-replies, usually lasting all day, sometimes even dragging on other several days. The hashtag helps keep track of them too.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    It doesn't really work that way,twitter is the ultimate clique,if they don't agree with what you say or don't like your face, you don't get the access to express a view, because everyone is their own moderator no realistic debates take place. 'Boards' or aggregates include more diversity of view, an safer area for when extreme views creep in. It's basically if you feel moderation is OK. I've read online many areas who despise moderation of any kind, these people moved to twitter and facebook mostly. The point they make is freedom of speech but they ignore human nature and the dangers of going 'out there' and saying whatever you want to say without restriction, in time these areas will not be able to freely do that, because of libel and other laws, moderation has to come if they like it or not, it is about common sense and degree. Contray to popular belief I have never contributed to an unregulated site online, or I would get continual abuse daily..... freedom of expression is a myth anyway it just exposes you to those adept at exploiting. I'm sure many perverted areas online would love to be able to post here and plug their dubious trades, exploit the vulnerable, groom others, but we are all happy they can't, is that not accepting moderation is necessary ? It also protects disabled who are currently public enemy number one in some people's eyes... being blamed for everything that is wrong in society, welcome back to the 1930s....

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    It makes me laugh, you bang on about protection and moderation and attack, yet you use your Blog for..... ?

    Nuff sed.

    You can't get continually attacked on FB or Twitter because you are in control. You can block/remove people.

    The Moderation on here (WOT moderation?!?! LOL) leaves much to be desired. The moderation on other forums are far better controlled than here.

    You also speak of WE don't want to move and WE refuse to use Facebook and WE, the disabled, want to stay here. A LOT of disabled already use Facebook and Twitter and many are members of specialist groups set up on Facebook. There's only been a handful of complaints that Ouch is closing, the rest are accepting it and already on Facebook.

    25 days and counting......

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Sounds like a good argument for closing Deaf 4 Life to me. It has a far lower message rate than this place.
    The existence of this thread at all is an example of the lack of skill demonstrated by the BBC. I'd have dealt with it a long time ago!

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 36.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    As someone said on a different forum the other day ... you can hear the thudding of bullets through feet...

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

    Sounds like a good argument for closing Deaf 4 Life to me. It has a far lower message rate than this place. 
    I don't see any argument relating to D4L but I do agree it's on the quiet side, same as most forums on the 'net these days. I have always said that this is largely down to Social Networking being more popular than forums now. smiley - smiley
    As for it's closure, it's not up to me, it's Tony's forum.

    The existence of this thread at all is an example of the lack of skill demonstrated by the BBC. I'd have dealt with it a long time ago! 
    Totally agree. We at D4L would have dealt with it by now too.
    Oh, hang on. We did deal with it. Many months ago. smiley - winkeye

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    What did he say that was so terrible that you had to throw him out?
    What are you afraid of? The truth?

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Michael Alexander Kearsley (U1675895) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Twitter has a maximum character limit of 140 characters - hardly the right place for a proper debate. 
    It's good for links, there are also various shortening sites such as bit.ly and others where you can post text (anonymously in some cases) and it gives a link to that bit of text that can then be tweeted. There are various ways around it, Twitter uses a very different form of replies to BBC Message Boards and to the ways Facebook does it, there aren't Discussions or formal threads as such, though Twitter can be used to create an index.

    Certainly as the number of remaining Boards dwindles as they are closed and closed or sold in the case of H2G2 then there will come a point where the expense of keeping the remaining ones open will be considered not to justify the small number, because it isn't just moderation, they still have to maintain the Boards software system. Ultimately as well I imagine that the blogs will locate off the main BBC site to external blog providers or indeed microblogging systems such as Facebook, a lot of the blogs don't seem to have much activity.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Michael Alexander Kearsley (U1675895) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Cross referencing:
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Michael Alexander Kearsley (U1675895) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    Drat, that first link should have been:
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    The latter one links to a discussion on the differences of different media in terms of what people write.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by M M (U14200747) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    This legs person is still attempting to flame and change the issue away from the OUCH closure to 'payback' time, also YOU are ignoring the fact OUCH users did not WANT to go to social sites, please respect their wish, stick to discussing the campaign, and not rabbit on about the ways social sites might work for others, it is NOT relevant, the disabled at OUCH do not want to go there, they want to stay HERE. It's just personal attack with hate mail attack on disabled and deaf here as well. I feel the case conclusively proven that exposing OUCH disabled to social sites produces exactly what we are already seeing. The vultures and abusers gather. They came here two years ago and failed to bring down this board, this was after they closed a certain charitable site using the same methods. Any 'victory' they might celebrate is rather hollow, we stopped them then but we can't stop the site owners, who are not doing it as a favour to these idiots. I can only assume the BBC is allowing it because they are not going to listen to the OUCH contributors and see these flamers as aids to their cause, bad show BBC.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Legsmaniac (U14335796) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    What did he say that was so terrible that you had to throw him out? 
    Sorry but the public messageboards of any forum is not the place to discuss this. However, suffice is it to say that it was not just one thing that was said which caused his departure after repeated warnings.

    What are you afraid of? The truth? 
    Of course not. Actually, the truth would be lovely for a change instead of repeated lies, exaggerations and attacks.
    I've said enough.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by tishcat (U14708219) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.....Rudyard Kipling


    Lets have a bit of all round good humour and accept that we don't always see eye to eye with our neighbour.

    If OUCH is ever resurrected, i suggest they take a leaf out of the fb or twitter set up in that you can edit or even cancel comments that were made in the heat of the moment.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by AndyfromCornwall (U14342750) on Sunday, 12th June 2011

    It's not in the heat of the moment. It is a long sustained campaign of abuse against someone who has every right to express his opinions on deafness and other issues. It's not up to other people to tell him (or anyone else) what they can and can't say.

    Sorry but the public messageboards of any forum is not the place to discuss this. 

    You don't seem to have any trouble in raising it. Why is it wrong when I do it?

    However, suffice is it to say that it was not just one thing that was said which caused his departure after repeated warnings. 


    Warnings about what? Things you disagreed with?
    It's not your place to go about telling others what to think!



    Of course not. Actually, the truth would be lovely for a change instead of repeated lies, exaggerations and attacks.
    I've said enough. 


    Lies about what? Attacks against whom? You make it up as you go along!

    This is just gibberish.

    MM has been a contributor to deaf discussions and a satirical commentator on the deaf world for about 20 years now. Maybe you didn't know that but he has been welcomed in most forums for quite a few years.
    Only you have banned him. That says more about your forum mismanagement than it does about MM.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Ouch! messageboard has now closed. Messages you have posted will remain archived.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

To continue the conversation visit Ouch's blog (bbc.co.uk/ouch) - now part of BBC News. There you'll find our podcast, regular blog entries and articles, community events, and links to where you can find us on Facebook and Twitter.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Live community panel

Our blog is the main place to go for all things Ouch! Find info, comment, articles and great disability content on the web via us.

Mat and Liz
Listen to our regular razor sharp talk show online, or subscribe to it as a podcast. Spread the word: it's where disability and reality almost collide.

More from the BBC

BBC Sport

Disability Sport

All the latest news from the paralympics.

Peter White

In Touch

News and views for people who are blind or partially sighted.

BBC Radio 4

You & Yours

Weekdays 12.40pm. Radio 4's consumer affairs programme.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.