posting while banned

[NotAllThere]

Nope, he's correctly pointing out that the rules used to be if your main account or sockie account was banned, that ban also applied to any other account that the poster uses...

Weren't those occasions where the banned alter-ego was simply wishing to carry on with whatever he was banned for?

Except for the MF incident. Obviously we were meanly picking on him that time.

[BrilloPad]

Weren't those occasions where the banned alter-ego was simply wishing to carry on with whatever he was banned for?

No.

[eek]

Weren't those occasions where the banned alter-ego was simply wishing to carry on with whatever he was banned for?

Except for the MF incident. Obviously we were meanly picking on him that time.

Good attempt at sneaking a change in the roles in but no.... As an example may I draw your attention to the 3 posts of Mike Hunt - none of those posts had anything to do with the reason for MF's ban at the time...

[Old Greg]

WGAS

[eek]

WGAS

Not me except that its an excuse to annoy both Sas and NAT at the same time...

[NotAllThere]

Good attempt at sneaking a change in the roles in but no.... As an example may I draw your attention to the 3 posts of Mike Hunt - none of those posts had anything to do with the reason for MF's ban at the time...

I did say except for the MF incident.

Not me except that its an excuse to annoy both Sas and NAT at the same time...

Hah. Good luck with that!

[eek]

I did say except for the MF incident.

Hah. Good luck with that!

So you want an example that isn't the MF incident...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2243435 followed by


http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2243580

[sasguru]

Not me except that its an excuse to annoy both Sas and NAT at the same time...

I don't think that's working.
All you're succeeding in doing is demonstrating to all and sundry what a tedious little twunt you are.

[eek]

I don't think that's working.
All you're succeeding in doing is demonstrating to all and sundry what a tedious little twunt you are.

Quite possibly - but it kills time when I can't be arsed to do any real work

After all I'm only here because I'm <---

[NotAllThere]

So you want an example that isn't the MF incident...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2243435 followed by


http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2243580

Ah - I understand the cause of your confusion. You've looked at past behaviour and inferred a set of rules. Unfortunately you're missing certain critical information that renders your rule-set incomplete. You could ask Old Greg - he appears to have deduced what you're lacking.