# Keith - and followers



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

OK - I'm going to outline the reason for the ban. This topic will be the FINAL DISCUSSION about this on the forum. Any other new threads will be locked without warning. Honestly, I'm getting real tired of this crap.

Firstly, message to Keith:

*You continue to re-register and spam my user base with invitations to your new forum. *

All I'll do is continue to ban you. I was due to speak to Michael G tomorrow on the phone to see if we could solve this problem but frankly, you're making this situation a lot harder. I also think it's important to tell people why you're banned, don't you?

1) You did not get the ego massage from us that you so wanted. You continually used your position as a prominent member of the community to gain financially from traders by advertising their wares on this forum and receiving freebies from them as a result. This has been mentioned to you a 100 times. We even let you sell your t-shirts and mugs. The final one was your prop shaft thread - an absolutely brilliant thread with valuable content which you duly crapped on by the blatant ad at the end of it. Amazing how you managed to get a free prop shaft and THEN put a huge ad up at the same time isn't it? 

2) Your problem with Jason is not the concern of the forum. This goes for my moderators too because Christ knows I'm not showing favoritisms to anyone. Nobody deserves to be brought into the middle of what appears to have the potential of becoming a violent dispute. This forum is for discussions about Skylines and when Neanderthals start talking about breaking skulls, then crikey, you can all go take your ball and play elsewhere - I don't know about you but I'm a family man, fighting ended at 16 for me.

3) Your relationship with Rod Bell is healthy and I commend your loyalty, but continually attempting to ram the RB name down our throats in the absence of a paltry £25.00 banner is going to always push the wrong buttons. Imagine what could have been possible if there WAS a banner in place. However, I got a feeling you knew this and as a result, was happy to keep pushing those wrong buttons. You have a anarchistic nature.

Now you spam my users with invites to your new forum? You're only doing this because:
a) You've been banned from here.
b) You've been shunned on SOC.
c) You do not have the loyal fan base you thought you did.

This forum is not about an individual. This forum is about the car the namesake represents and if you are unable to act as an equal member of the community, then the community can do without you.

I've given Keith ample opportunity to contact me to discuss this problem - he has failed to do so on numerous occasions. My phone number is available to him, my email address is available to him. Michael has at least seen sense to try to pacify a situation which we both admit has gone way out of hand.

Again, I reiterate, my email address is here. If Keith wants to talk about this and put this mess behind us, then I will gladly have a chat on the phone. 

Personally, I don't believe any of this is for public consumption. I don't like washing my laundry in public, so if people can PLEASE refrain from bringing this up again, I'll be most grateful.

I'm going to leave this thread open over the weekend at which point I'll lock it. Meanwhile, if anybody craps this thread up then I'll lock it earlier - let's try to have a reasoned discussion, ok?

Cem

p.s. I've also acknowledged that moderators posting in threads after they've been locked is wrong and ill-advised. In their defence, as a moderator you cannot clearly see that the thread is locked as you can still see the 'reply' feature, something hidden to normal users. I've mentioned this in another thread so hopefully we can put this to rest too.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Well I think the results of this poll reflect people's opinions:

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/6...een-banned-forum.html?highlight=keith+banning

Seen as this is intended as a discussion, I'm going to be frank. If JasonO wasn't a mod, Keith would not have been banned. I would suggest unbanning him and maintaining some self-respect.

As for the paltry £25 banner. 'Paltry' - so why are you so bothered?


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Well I think the results of this poll reflect people's opinions:
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/6...een-banned-forum.html?highlight=keith+banning
> 
> ...


Did your eyes just gloss over the first post in this thread or something? Keith has been the subject of mod discussion (re: banning) several times, and the ONLY reason it hasn't been done before is _because_ it's a last resort. When someone (ANYONE, no one is exempt) flagrantly breaks practically all of the rules on here, ignores any requests for discussion with Cem, then what to YOU suggest should be done?

It sounds like you're advocating different rules for different people on here, which I'm sure you know is called "double standards". Ironically I'm sure you'd be the first person to **** and moan as soon as any suggestion of double standards crept in.

I'd suggest re-reading the first post in this thread until you understand it.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Did your eyes just gloss over the first post in this thread or something? Keith has been the subject of mod discussion (re: banning) several times, and the ONLY reason it hasn't been done before is _because_ it's a last resort. When someone (ANYONE, no one is exempt) flagrantly breaks practically all of the rules on here, ignores any requests for discussion with Cem, then what to YOU suggest should be done?
> 
> It sounds like you're advocating different rules for different people on here, which I'm sure you know is called "double standards". Ironically I'm sure you'd be the first person to **** and moan as soon as any suggestion of double standards crept in.
> 
> I'd suggest re-reading the first post in this thread until you understand it.


From what I read, in the thread in question. A remark was made clearly relating to an incident at TOTB which Keith responded to:

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/61706-arm-chair-warriors-2.html?highlight=arm+chair



Durzel said:


> It sounds like you're advocating different rules for different people on here


No, just less rules altogether. It's a 'Rant' forum. Keith and JasonO were ranting and hence complying fully with the forum description.


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Well I think the results of this poll reflect people's opinions:
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/6...een-banned-forum.html?highlight=keith+banning
> 
> ...


You clearly cant read can you? 

Self respect! lol, Thats almost funny seeing as it's coming from you .

Cem's pointed out the rules for advertising for Christ's sake .

Why do you continue to stire the pot on nearly every thread?


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Well I think the results of this poll reflect people's opinions:
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/6...een-banned-forum.html?highlight=keith+banning
> 
> ...


R33_GTS-t,

Considering that you are the argumentative person on the whole forum, I class any response from you as nothing other than provocative.
How many times have you been banned? (Let's not count the 30 alias's you registered, shall we?)

I cannot make reasoned debate with you, but I'll humour your questions anyway.

My banning Keith has nothing to do with Jason - take off your blinkers and read exactly what I'm saying because god knows I'm sick to death of repeating myself. Keith was banned because he failed to respond to a question I posed to him about physically threatning someone on this forum. End of.

If one thing's intact, it's my dignity. I have not yet lowered myself to the depths you suggest to gain back any self-respect. 

Trade rules are black & white. If you do not understand the simple concept of advertising, ask and I shall explain. Otherwise I can only assume you're looking for me to state the obvious.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

stealth said:


> You clearly cant read can you?
> 
> Self respect! lol, Thats almost funny seeing as it's coming from you .
> 
> ...


I can't read? Should Keith be banned? 29 NO votes to 2 YES votes.

This thread was created to discuss the matter. I'm doing that.


----------



## Demon Dave (Sep 15, 2002)

*R33_GTS-t I think it is you*

who can't read.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Blow Dog said:


> My banning Keith has nothing to do with Jason - take off your blinkers and read exactly what I'm saying because god knows I'm sick to death of repeating myself. Keith was banned because he failed to respond to a question I posed to him about physically threatning someone on this forum. End of.


Did Keith see your question? Did he know you wanted a response? Maybe he just left the thread to allow things to cool down by themselves. Your pre-ban warnings are cryptic at best if they exist at all. As for the spamming, you got off lightly, your servers are still up. I've heard of a lot worse.



Blow Dog said:


> Trade rules are black & white. If you do not understand the simple concept of advertising, ask and I shall explain. Otherwise I can only assume you're looking for me to state the obvious.


Let me explain the concept of advertising to you. We did have the owner of the fastest UK GTR on this board. Now we don't. You just fired the Giselle of the UK skyline scene. So Keith's eccentric. He drives a 1200+hp GTR, what did you expect?


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Demon Dave said:


> who can't read.


Well, when someone tells you that you can't read, they better get their literacy up to scratch whilst doing so. 

And may I say, what a big surprise it was to see you join in the attack.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> I can't read? You can't spell or use apostrophes.:chuckle: Should Keith be banned? 29 NO votes to 2 YES votes.
> 
> This thread was created to discuss the matter. I'm doing that.


Picking up someone on typos is a pretty weak reply to an argument. Are you not able to answer his points?

Incidentally, the principal rules of the forum are not open to discussion/voting, especially when not everyone is in full possession of the facts. To depersonalise it you might as well put up a poll asking whether people should be banned for continually flouting trade advertising rules, or whether people should be banned for personal physical threats & abuse, as those are the issues behind this specific ban.



R33_GTS-t said:


> Let me explain the concept of advertising to you.


:chuckle: 



R33_GTS-t said:


> We did have the owner of the fastest UK GTR on this board. Now we don't.


No one is above the rules. Did you forget the part where I mentioned about "double standards"? Hello? McFly?


----------



## paul creed (Feb 18, 2003)

R33_GTS-t said:


> I can't read? You can't spell or use apostrophes.:chuckle: Should Keith be banned? 29 NO votes to 2 YES votes.
> 
> This thread was created to discuss the matter. I'm doing that.


Actually, i think that answer in itself puts things in a clear picture.
29 votes say NO.....mmm, how people on this forum? How many people know of Keith and his car? and only 29 people bother to answer!!
Personally, and i'm sure its the same with the majority, i don't particularly care whether Keith is here on this forum or not, as i do not know him personally, nor have i ever met him. I have great respect for his car, and his achievements as i know alot of the ideas and work were his own, but i dont feel the need to bow down to Keith, and i suspect he doesnt expect me to either. Keith is no different to me, no better and no more immune to a good bollocking. 
It all depends on what you want out of a community and what you expect of people, if you have no respect for either, then feeling is generally mutual.


----------



## raz0r$harP (Feb 15, 2006)

I applaud the job that you and the rest of the mods/admins are doing Cem. I don't think ppl realise the effort that goes on behind the scenes in keeping a large forum going..


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Picking up someone on typos is a pretty weak reply to an argument. Are you not able to answer his points?


I did that too. Call it multi-tasking. Anyway, I've deleted the spelling corrections to save offence, because it is clearly only allowed in one direction.



Durzel said:


> Incidentally, the principal rules of the forum are not open to discussion/voting, especially when not everyone is in full possession of the facts.


It's never stopped people voting before.:chuckle: Are you saying this is a fascist board?



Durzel said:


> To depersonalise it you might as well put up a poll asking whether people should be banned for continually flouting trade advertising rules, or whether people should be banned for personal physical threats & abuse, as those are the issues behind this specific ban.


Depends on the circumstances.



Durzel said:


> No one is above the rules. Did you forget the part where I mentioned about "double standards"? Hello? McFly?


So would you ban yourself if you were offensive to someone on this board? Would you ban another mod?


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

nowhere on that thread does it discuss the REAL reasons

If you were to hold a poll, asking if traders who blatentley flout the clear cut rules this forum has, should be banned, against the potential cost of losing the forum as other advertisers withdraw thier funds which help pay for the running of this place.

I personally think it's foolish to seocnd guess Cem's decision, bearing in mind, we are all freeloaders here.

mook


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

paul creed said:


> Actually, i think that answer in itself puts things in a clear picture.
> 29 votes say NO.....mmm, how people on this forum? How many people know of Keith and his car? and only 29 people bother to answer!!


The thread was closed early. Given the rate the votes stacked up at, it speaks for itself. Only 2 people voted YES, so how many people share your view? 1 in 15 is the answer.



paul creed said:


> Personally, and i'm sure its the same with the majority, i don't particularly care whether Keith is here on this forum or not, as i do not know him personally, nor have i ever met him. I have great respect for his car, and his achievements as i know alot of the ideas and work were his own, but i dont feel the need to bow down to Keith, and i suspect he doesnt expect me to either. Keith is no different to me, no better and no more immune to a good bollocking.
> It all depends on what you want out of a community and what you expect of people, if you have no respect for either, then feeling is generally mutual.


I agree, but I don't feel that was the matter here.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Mookistar said:


> nowhere on that thread does it discuss the REAL reasons
> 
> If you were to hold a poll, asking if traders who blatentley flout the clear cut rules this forum has, should be banned, against the potential cost of losing the forum as other advertisers withdraw thier funds which help pay for the running of this place.
> 
> ...


Not entirely. We pay for internet subscription and browse here. If we didn't, the people paying for the adverts above and around wouldn't do so, as nobody would see them.


----------



## liquidculture (Apr 19, 2004)

All seems pretty straightforward to me, at least as far as the advertising goes, as for the rest - all seems pretty stupid to me but I havent been following it (boring), if you want to advertise then pay for it the same as everone else, it all goes towards our benefit in the end.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> I did that too. Call it multi-tasking. Anyway, I've deleted the spelling corrections to save offence, because it is clearly only allowed in one direction.


It's allowed in every direction, to a point. I should hope you can understand that very real threats of physical violence are a World apart from keyboard warrior crap, and name-calling. Hell, both you and Mycroft have at it in practically every thread on here. Keith (and others) have made very specific threats of violence against another member of the forum (who happens to be a mod). Trust me, if the same happened with anyone else and it was thought to be serious (especially if said threats were followed up with threats in person) it would end up with the same result.

If anything if I were in Jasons shoes I would be quite exasperated that Keith hadn't been banned the day after it all happened, I know I would be. Despite what you might think, assume, or claim to know - Cem has exhausted every available option to him before sanctioning this ban.



R33_GTS-t said:


> It's never stopped people voting before.:chuckle: Are you saying this is a fascist board?


Nope, I'm saying that certain rules are not open to discussion. It's not like you're being asked to pay a mandatory licence fee to use this forum. There is a simple solution to avoid having to conform to ANY of the rules on here, and I'm sure I don't have to spell it out. Forcible compliance with rules you don't agree with would only be a fascist dictatorship if you had no choice in the matter....



R33_GTS-t said:


> Depends on the circumstances.


The circumstances are in the first post on this thread, which you seem to continue to ignore to suit your "argument".



R33_GTS-t said:


> So would you ban yourself if you were offensive to someone on this board? Would you ban another mod?


Wouldn't have to. For a start Cem would ask that person to step down, and secondly none of us are stupid enough that violence or the threat of it is our only recourse in an argument. :chuckle: Incidentally I'm not talking about "calling people names" because people do that everywhere on here, including you, although it is a bit of a lazy way out of an argument.

Your problem is you think this is personal when it isn't. If anything, if someone who had just registered on the site had done even one of the things Cem has mentioned then chances are they would be banned first and questions asked later. Keith was afforded every possible avenue of discussion to avoid this, and chose to ignore it - perhaps thinking, like you seem to, that he is above the rules because of the size of his <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">collection box</span> pockets.


----------



## JB. (Jul 4, 2004)

R33 GTST has anybody told you that your really, really BORING.
I personally I am getting sick of seeing your name.
Sorry for going off topic.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

A simple fact for you.

The banning, amazingly enough, is none of your business. It was not open to public debate, therefor the vote was irrelevant.



R33_GTS-t said:


> Did Keith see your question? Did he know you wanted a response? Maybe he just left the thread to allow things to cool down by themselves. Your pre-ban warnings are cryptic at best if they exist at all.


No, course not - he never saw my questions, he never does  It suits him that way. He DOES have the time, however, to sign up another login in order to spam my userbase with invitations to his own forum, an incredibly underhand tactic which appears to be in line with his nature. I mean, who would re-register multiple times to increase his own profile eh? Who'd have thought of it? Tsk! 



R33_GTS-t said:


> As for the spamming, you got off lightly, your servers are still up. I've heard of a lot worse.


Don't go giving me thinly veiled threats 'mate'. I'm in no mood for your pseudo intellectual mannerisms - don't make yourself to be some super hero. Go crawl under a rock.



R33_GTS-t said:


> Let me explain the concept of advertising to you....


No please, I don't teach your grandma how to suck eggs....


----------



## Bajie (Dec 13, 2001)

I honestly don't see the point of continually going over this.

Unless you are really stupid, the reasons for the banning are clear.
Also, several threads have been posted over the past few days getting the natives restless and culminating in a new forum opening.

Me, myself, I, personally wish the situation could be resolved and we could all reside here in some sort of harmony.

Its not going to happen. Lets move on.


----------



## jameswrx (Jul 27, 2003)

I think Keith was very clever shunning the £25 banner advert..

I mean, how would he have got 'this' much publicity for RB Motorsport and his car/parts by playing ball.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

Bajie said:


> I honestly don't see the point of continually going over this.
> 
> Unless you are really stupid, the reasons for the banning are clear.
> Also, several threads have been posted over the past few days getting the natives restless and culminating in a new forum opening.
> ...


It'll blow over, even if it means having to deal (communicate) with all of the people who either don't understand the reasons behind the ban or aren't prepared to accept them on an individual basis.



jameswrx said:


> I think Keith was very clever shunning the £25 banner advert..
> 
> I mean, how would he have got 'this' much publicity for RB Motorsport and his car/parts by playing ball.


Well exactly :chuckle: Not to mention where else would he have got the free advertising to pimp his line of tasteful mugs and t-shirts? It should be interesting to see how he copes with his bandwidth/hosting bills if his new forum gets off the ground, maybe he'll finance it with another subversive "totally unbiased review of a product and completely coincidental Group Buy".


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

paul creed said:


> Actually, i think that answer in itself puts things in a clear picture.
> 29 votes say NO.....mmm, how people on this forum? How many people know of Keith and his car? and only 29 people bother to answer!!
> Personally, and i'm sure its the same with the majority, i don't particularly care whether Keith is here on this forum or not, as i do not know him personally, nor have i ever met him. I have great respect for his car, and his achievements as i know alot of the ideas and work were his own, but i dont feel the need to bow down to Keith, and i suspect he doesnt expect me to either. Keith is no different to me, no better and no more immune to a good bollocking.
> It all depends on what you want out of a community and what you expect of people, if you have no respect for either, then feeling is generally mutual.


Mate, you took the words from me there.

I think people just post for postings sake on here sometimes &/or feel the need to become involved or want to make themselves involved with something that is none of their f**king business.

Shame they don't heed the advice or listen to what they are told as clearly shown in this case.


----------



## SPEED MERCHANT (Jun 5, 2006)

SPEED MERCHANT said:


> Mate, you took the words from me there.
> 
> I think people just post for postings sake on here sometimes &/or feel the need to become involved or want to make themselves involved with something that is none of their f**king business.
> 
> Shame they don't heed the advice or listen to what they are told as clearly shown in this case.


By the way DURZEL - nice avatar, but just stay away from that trap door ... as there's something down there :chuckle:


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

Thanks Cem for clearing up the situation. Let's move on from now on and make this forum even more attractive then before.

I think the majority of the members-users and guests are not affected by this matter and the forums image is still preserved like before . . 

To this I invite you all of having an ice cream on one of the last hot weekends of the year . . .
Magnum

Regards

Chris:wavey:


----------



## GTR_Cymru (Jun 28, 2005)

Quite frankly I'm fed up of reading about this whole issue, again and again.

The topic of discussion is none of my business, and so I've kept well clear of it.

It's yesterday's news, can we please move on gentlemen?


----------



## stu0x (Jun 30, 2002)

if you can't play by the rules, **** off

end of discussion


----------



## whoflungdung (May 7, 2005)

Personally I feel this thread, although a way of justification
Is playing along with Keith
The most talked about person on here, and he loves every second of it

I have met him once at totbv, he seemed a reasonable chap
As for how he behaved on this forum, he deserves what he has got
For me he was like Jackyl & Hyde

I had a very bad experience at RB Motorsport
When I voiced what happened I was gunned down
And thats were my problems with Keith and the crew started
Although it had nothing to do with them
Then the threats started etc etc etc

The forum is for people to discuss their cars etc
Not an open invitation for a b1tch fight
I will become a full member next year, and will not be leaving this register any time soon

John


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

I have been following this "personality power fight" (and it is a personality fight) since the start but rarely took part in it not knowing either party personally.

It's as simple as this IMHO - when I started my own company (based in NI only and only of use to people in NI) I added my business web address to my signature never thinking anything bad of it just to increase my google hits. Cem within two hours requested it removed. I was well Fxcked off with him as it was never intended as advertising as it was only of use within 25 miles of me and I did feel that Cem has a "hard" approach to getting his message across that has taken me time to get used to (being a liaison with over 20 senior managers of multi-million pound companies for over a decade I was more used to the common business approach of "I'm sorry but...because...".

In retrospect it was fair of Cem to ask me to remove it as it was still advertising whether it was of any use or not so I agree with Cem decision now about Keith.

I reckon if Keith had time to think about this when the original incident happened he would just have paid the £25 to keep things fair but probably he got his back up and felt that he had given the forum more than £25 over the years while neglecting to realise that the forum had given him a lot more in return :squintdan .

I think the best way to solve the issue was simply to give Keith a deadline (e.g. 10 days) in which to pay the advertising due (£25) or else be banned and make it non-personal as a forum not a mod request.

I think all involved need to realise they ALL share a part of the blame for the current situation whether it be stubbornness, bad people skills or just a BIG case of "biting off your nose to spite your face".

And all this talking it over and over on an open forum will not make the problem go away as it is only between the people involved and they are the only ones who can solve it.


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

People who who see keith as the messiah join up his new forum (if he has one) and get the **** outta here. 

What the **** has this foum come to over the last few weeks its just gone complelety downhill and I am sick of hearing keiths name and watching tounges go brown so get over it.

If he has made such an impact on your lives that you cant live without him then may i suggest you re group and take squabbling elsewere.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Nope, I'm saying that certain rules are not open to discussion. It's not like you're being asked to pay a mandatory licence fee to use this forum. There is a simple solution to avoid having to conform to ANY of the rules on here, and I'm sure I don't have to spell it out. Forcible compliance with rules you don't agree with would only be a fascist dictatorship if you had no choice in the matter....


So the choice is to leave? Isn't that the same choice many dictatorships offers?


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

ma1lik said:


> and watching tounges go *brown* so get over it.


Oh.... That's racist.:chuckle:


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> I think the best way to solve the issue was simply to give Keith a deadline (e.g. 10 days) in which to pay the advertising due (£25) or else be banned and make it non-personal as a forum not a mod request.


That's not a bad idea, but it would have worked better before he was banned.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

R33_GTS-t, why do you care?

How does it affect you?

how does it affect your daily use of this forum?

you seem to come across as the little man's saviour, sticking up for every downtrodden soul who's plight is raised on the forum. from the Muslim debate, to menezez, and now, bizarrly, for Keith Cowie.

Quite seriously, bearing in mind nothing you say, or think, will affect Cem and his principles, why not just keep Schtum.

by all means approach Keith and say "dude, you got screwed and i support you"

but for ****s sake, stop going on about it.

If you don't like it, leave, which, if the likes of yourselves continue to stir the shit, is exactly what other users might start to do.

then, when you need the sort of help that only the GTR register can provide, you'll understand rocking the boat weren't such a good idea


all IMHO of course.

Mook


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Oh.... That's racist.:chuckle:


Lol, Ok let me try and rephrase 

Why do you get tongue tied, Whenever keith is near you? Yes, you make their tongues go round Whenever you're around, Whenever you're in town they drool so much they drown KEITH THEIR TOUNGES ARE ALMOST BROWN  :wavey:


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> So the choice is to leave? Isn't that the same choice many dictatorships offers?


Dictatorships don't offer choices, that's pretty much why they're called "dictatorships". :chuckle:


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

It seems some on here view the loss of Keith as some sort of major disaster. Reiterating the fact that I dont know Keith personally and have no axe to grind with anyone, even though his car is something of a monster and fly's the flag for the marque he, or indeed anyone else, cannot be above the law of the forum. Thats like saying "OK, the top 10 biggest BHP Skyline owners can do whatever they want on the forum" coz they're 'special'. *sigh*. Whether I've got a 1000BHP car or a 280BHP car it makes not 1 jot of a difference as I'm sure the vast majority see it on here.
I too am getting a bit tired of reading about this (and YES, with this post I'm adding to it LOL) and would like everyone to accept whats happened and get over it. The forum is bigger than any one person irrespective of how fast/powerful/prominent their car is.

TT


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Dictatorships don't offer choices, that's pretty much why they're called "dictatorships". :chuckle:


They offer the 'conform or die' choice. See, there are always options.

I'm a great believer in the third way though. Anyway, I can see this is another head-wall-banging thread, so I will bid you a due.:wavey:


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

tarmac terror said:


> It seems some on here view the loss of Keith as some sort of major disaster. Reiterating the fact that I dont know Keith personally and have no axe to grind with anyone, even though his car is something of a monster and fly's the flag for the marque he, or indeed anyone else, cannot be above the law of the forum. Thats like saying "OK, the top 10 biggest BHP Skyline owners can do whatever they want on the forum" coz they're 'special'. *sigh*. Whether I've got a 1000BHP car or a 280BHP car it makes not 1 jot of a difference as I'm sure the vast majority see it on here.
> I too am getting a bit tired of reading about this (and YES, with this post I'm adding to it LOL) and would like everyone to accept whats happened and get over it. The forum is bigger than any one person irrespective of how fast/powerful/prominent their car is.
> 
> TT




:thumbsup: 

I think we should start a support the forum thread.


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

LOL @ Ma1lik. Yeah mate, good idea :chuckle: :chuckle: 

TT


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> They offer the 'conform or die' choice. See, there are always options.
> 
> I'm a great believer in the third way though. Anyway, I can see this is another head-wall-banging thread, so I will bid you a due.:wavey:


So in other words you've basically realised you haven't got a leg to stand on as far as making an argument goes, as per usual, and are opting not to reply to hope that the thread disappears? I'm surprised you haven't pulled a straw man argument out of your ass and used that instead.

What kind of comparison are you making? Are you saying that if you can't use this forum you'll die?  Or are you saying there should be a democratic decision made on commercial matters such as unauthorised trade advertising, when you aren't actually contributing any money towards the forum anyway? Are you saying that people should be allowed to make physical threats against people?

You still seem resolute in ignoring everything Cem has posted at the beginning of this thread. I can only assume you are doing this because it doesn't fit your argument, because I can see no other reason that you would persist in assuming its a personal issue with Keith.

PS. "Choices that dictatorships offer", that's a good one - I'll have to add that to the list.


----------



## liquidculture (Apr 19, 2004)

ma1lik said:


> People who who see keith as the messiah join up his new forum (if he has one) and get the **** outta here.
> 
> What the **** has this foum come to over the last few weeks its just gone complelety downhill and I am sick of hearing keiths name and watching tounges go brown so get over it.
> 
> If he has made such an impact on your lives that you cant live without him then may i suggest you re group and take squabbling elsewere.


I agree totally, I visit the forum from time to time and occasionally post quite a bit but this seems to have been going on for ages I keep seeing discussion about him, how about closing this thread and closing any that mention him, I am fed up with hearing keith this and keith that, let him go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants as long as we dont have to hear about it any more - why dont we have the little smiley that pukes any more? I want to use it!!!


----------



## tarmac terror (Jul 16, 2003)

Wot, this uke: one :chuckle: .Press the 'more' button at the bottom of the smiley bit.

TT


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

liquidculture said:


> I agree totally, I visit the forum from time to time and occasionally post quite a bit but this seems to have been going on for ages I keep seeing discussion about him, how about closing this thread and closing any that mention him, I am fed up with hearing keith this and keith that, let him go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants as long as we dont have to hear about it any more - why dont we have the little smiley that pukes any more? I want to use it!!!


:runaway: Keith :runaway:


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

uke: uke: this one you mean??


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

leggus said:


> uke: uke: this one you mean??


I meant this one :banned: 

:chuckle:


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Oh very well, we'll continue.



Durzel said:


> So in other words you've basically realised you haven't got a leg to stand on as far as making an argument goes, as per usual, and are opting not to reply to hope that the thread disappears? I'm surprised you haven't pulled a straw man argument out of your ass and used that instead.


That's insulting. Please ban yourself.



Durzel said:


> What kind of comparison are you making? Are you saying that if you can't use this forum you'll die?  Or are you saying there should be a democratic decision made on commercial matters such as unauthorised trade advertising, when you aren't actually contributing any money towards the forum anyway?


You said dictatorships didn't offer choices, I argued that they did, just that they were sh!t choices. I think I made that point. I also think you are failing to see that Keith does attract paying members to the forum. How much would you pay for a set of golf clubs? How much does Tiger Woods pay? Nothing. Club manufacturers are simply glad that he uses their clubs, infact he probably gets paid for using them.



Durzel said:


> Are you saying that people should be allowed to make physical threats against people?


People say things in the heat of the moment that they don't mean, especially on the internet. I think it's obvious that JasonO wasn't really going to end up as a 'Sun' article in the Rant forum.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

leggus said:


> uke: uke: this one you mean??


uke::flame: 

I like combinations of these fellows.


----------



## Mookistar (Feb 5, 2004)

perhaps repsond to my post?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

IMHO virtual dialogue via internet/email is what causes most misunderstandings like these  .

If you can talk on the phone or better still talk face to face these sort of problems never arise. Humans were never designed to have this sort of comms interface so you end up with the Keith/Jason/Cem issue that can never be resolved UNLESS the virtual world is left behind and they either talk on the phone or face to face.

That's my suggestion to resolve this issue - "someone pick up the phone and dial".


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> You said dictatorships didn't offer choices, I argued that they did, just that they were sh!t choices. I think I made that point.


You didn't make any point. You saying "you can kill yourself" as the argument to "dictatorships dont offer choices" is about as retarded a point of view as I can think of. You're just being pedantic _because_ you have no argument against it, but you're too stubborn to admit it.



R33_GTS-t said:


> I also think you are failing to see that Keith does attract paying members to the forum. How much would you pay for a set of golf clubs? How much does Tiger Woods pay? Nothing. Club manufacturers are simply glad that he uses their clubs, infact he probably gets paid for using them.


Says who? You?

Where are your statistics to show Keith (or anyone) directly brings people to the club? I'm guessing this is just a supposition on your part, as per usual. Unless you can provide actual statistics to prove this (and you can't - note: saying "but he must do!" isn't a valid response) then it's a completely unprovable point.

Irrespective of that, you are STILL completely ignoring the fact I have told you several times now that *no one is above the rules on this forum*. When are you going to get that into your head?



R33_GTS-t said:


> People say things in the heat of the moment that they don't mean, especially on the internet. I think it's obvious that JasonO wasn't really going to end up as a 'Sun' article in the Rant forum.


Things that are followed up on in person.. hardly a "heat of the moment" thing is it. Idiot.

You are completely unable to argue any case aren't you. You ignore any posts that you are unable to answer or refute/don't fit your argument.

1) When are you going to read the first post in the thread
2) When are you going to understand that no user is above the rules on this forum, regardless of their status (whether actual or assumed)
3) When are you going to reply to posts that directly contradict your point of view?


----------



## Hamish (Aug 3, 2001)

Arseholes...


----------



## Andy W (Dec 31, 2005)

OMG its saturday i thourght playschool was closed


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Says who? You?
> 
> Where are your statistics to show Keith (or anyone) directly brings people to the club? I'm guessing this is just a supposition on your part, as per usual. Unless you can provide actual statistics to prove this (and you can't - note: saying "but he must do!" isn't a valid response) then it's a completely unprovable point.


Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Can any of the advertisers across the top actually prove that this site improves their profits?



Durzel said:


> Irrespective of that, you are STILL completely ignoring the fact I have told you several times now that *no one is above the rules on this forum*. When are you going to get that into your head?


When I see the rules applied evenly.



Durzel said:


> Things that are followed up on in person.. hardly a "heat of the moment" thing is it. *Idiot.*


Offensive again. Please ban yourself and also see above point.



Durzel said:


> You are completely unable to argue any case aren't you. You ignore any posts that you are unable to answer or refute/don't fit your argument.


You twist the things I say to fit your argument.



Durzel said:


> 1) When are you going to read the first post in the thread
> 2) When are you going to understand that no user is above the rules on this forum, regardless of their status (whether actual or assumed)
> 3) When are you going to reply to posts that directly contradict your point of view?


1) Done that.
2) When I see the rules applied evenly. I'll give specific names via PM if you like but I'm not opening a can of worms here.
3) Invalid point.

The reason I wanted to leave it above, is because I can't be ar5ed. That and the fact that the thread was ban-bait from the start.


----------



## gtrlux (Mar 8, 2006)

It's weekend and the ghostdog is not far . . . can you hear him allready?








:chuckle: :chuckle:


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Can you provide any evidence to the contrary? Can any of the advertisers across the top actually prove that this site improves their profits?


You brought the point up, the burden of proof is on you. I'm pretty sure that a given trader could see where web traffic has come from, that's after all the point of banner ads and is shown in webstats. You have no way of proving that any individual brings traffic to this site, other than your own say so - thus it's completely unprovable. Even if you _did_ have access to webstats they wouldn't prove your argument, so your argument falls flat. It's just an assumption, nothing more.



R33_GTS-t said:


> When I see the rules applied evenly.
> 
> Offensive again. Please ban yourself and also see above point.


You crying because I called you an idiot? Do you seriously want me to trawl through the posts you've made on the Rant Forum where you've called people various different things? Perhaps you should be banned as well then (again) at the same time? :chuckle: 



R33_GTS-t said:


> You twist the things I say to fit your argument.


You _have_ no argument. You are unable to grasp the circumstances behind the ban, you'd rather make them up to fit whatever warped pre-conceived opinion you have just so you can rage against the machine.



R33_GTS-t said:


> The reason I wanted to leave it above, is because I can't be ar5ed. That and the fact that the thread was ban-bait from the start.


Nah, you wanted to troll the thread like you do everywhere else. End of story.


----------



## game_over (Mar 29, 2006)

blah blah blah blah blah 
ohh and yes blah blah 
did i forget something 
yes big blaah


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

game_over said:


> blah blah blah blah blah
> ohh and yes blah blah
> did i forget something
> yes big blaah


:chuckle: :chuckle:


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

I have been posting on here for a while and reading for a while more. I've often thought that Cem has the patience of a saint, at times in the face of the utmost stupidity. However, this issue had brought Cem down to a level that I've never seen before; drawn into arguements that shouldn't even get past the first reply. So it makes me think that this is the most serious "event" that has had to have been dealt with for at least a couple of years. The last time I saw things so heated, it was over Peter's gearbox and issues with RB motorsport. Funnily enough the very same people ended up in the same sort of discussions.

The rules are pretty straightforward. And £25 per month for a banner, and more importantly the right to post commercially on this forum is peanuts. There are numerous car forums that want more for less, and here there is more or less, a captive audience to listen the right sort of advice. But my feeling is that if you want advice on your Skyline from a commercial outlet, you had better put your wallet on the counter before you even ask a question.

Still I had better not say too much, otherwise my banner ad, when it's sorted (and it will be), isn't going to get as much exposure if everyone jumps on the bandwagon!


----------



## AK-47 (Aug 9, 2006)

Nope, I read this whole thread though - every word - and I still don't have a clue who 'Keith' is.

Is he some sort of important person?


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

AK-47 said:


> Nope, I read this whole thread though - every word - and I still don't have a clue who 'Keith' is.
> 
> Is he some sort of important person?


Hope this helps

Keith Wheeler -- Carrying the Cross around the World


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

skyline69_uk said:


> IMHO virtual dialogue via internet/email is what causes most misunderstandings like these  .
> 
> If you can talk on the phone or better still talk face to face these sort of problems never arise. Humans were never designed to have this sort of comms interface so you end up with the Keith/Jason/Cem issue that can never be resolved UNLESS the virtual world is left behind and they either talk on the phone or face to face.
> 
> That's my suggestion to resolve this issue - "someone pick up the phone and dial".


This is the best post in the whole thread. It's so true, it's painful that many don't see it.

I've had a half hour conversation on the phone with Michael G. I'd like to think that, despite what we may have thought of each other before, all's going well now. It's crazy that in truth, we don't actually have any personal issues. The internet exacerbates pathetic, minor issues into massive problems.

Fact is, we're not happy with the level of dialogue by Keith and Michael, and they are not happy with the level of moderating. We need to find middle ground and aim to meet with some level of compromise.

My formal response is this:
I would like to unban Keith and Michael G, subject to their provision of an apology - without this, then there is no point in continuing. 
Conversely, I am also happy to see some reform within the way we moderate this forum. I think we're all adult enough to try to pacify this situation - if not, then we don't deserve to be here.


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

Just kidding you can get some info on his achivments on here 

Ten Of The Best


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Blow Dog said:


> I would like to unban Keith and Michael G, subject to their provision of an apology - without this, then there is no point in continuing.
> Conversely, I am also happy to see some reform within the way we moderate this forum.


There we are then, thats the bottom line, seems reasonable enough.

Time to shake hands and kick all this crap into touch.


----------



## Hugh Keir (Jul 25, 2001)

Un Ban Keith,

I don’t think the moderators and their supporters are on the same wave length as Keith.

Unlike most of you on here I know Keith well
He loves racing his car
Likes discussing his car
Likes talking about how he might improve the performance of his car
In short he is a car nut and a very dedicated one at that.

I’ll wager that most of the guy’s on here like reading what Keith has to say about his car 
Love watching him driving his car
Don’t really care that RB Motorsport are not sponsors of this site
Are far from offended when he let’s us in to a secret about which carbon prop he’s using, because most of the carbon props that are available are not reliable.

Let’s face it guy’s he’s already got his carbon prop and regardless of what discount he gets he unlikely to need another one, so will not personally benefit from talking about it.

Then we have the moderators who appear to be of the opinion that any mention of Keith’s car sponsors should somehow be lining their pockets.

It’s not enough for this site that the UK’s most famous Skyline owner comes on their forum to pass on a few gems and generally join in, they need their pockets lining as well.

I agree that a world without rules would be a horrible place to live in and feel that through Cems rules the biggest looser in this debacle is the GTR forum.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Some stuff.


So why did Keith visit JasonO? What was said prior?

Maybe if all forum cliches had an encounter of the 4th kind, the internet wouldn't be so screwed up.


----------



## Mike Marden (Aug 31, 2005)

R33_GTST, have you ever posted anything informative on this forum, or is it just provacation and having to dispute and argue with EVERYTHING that ANYONE has to say? Not being argumentative but just posing a question

Mike


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Blow Dog said:


> This is the best post in the whole thread. It's so true, it's painful that many don't see it.
> 
> I've had a half hour conversation on the phone with Michael G. I'd like to think that, despite what we may have thought of each other before, all's going well now. It's crazy that in truth, we don't actually have any personal issues. The internet exacerbates pathetic, minor issues into massive problems.
> 
> ...


A good idea but I think the apology needs to be both ways. Keith for the advertising/threat aspect and the moderators for unevenly balanced cliche moderation.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> A good idea but I think the apology needs to be both ways. Keith for the advertising/threat aspect and the moderators for unevenly balanced cliche moderation.


"Unevenly balanced cliche moderation"? What the hell does that even mean? Do you even know yourself or have you just stuck a few words together?


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Mike Marden said:


> R33_GTST, have you ever posted anything informative on this forum, or is it just provacation and having to dispute and argue with EVERYTHING that ANYONE has to say? Not being argumentative but just posing a question
> 
> Mike


Sure have - just recently.

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/61837-320kph-r32-how-many-hp.html

How about you?


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> A good idea but I think the apology needs to be both ways. Keith for the advertising/threat aspect and the moderators for unevenly balanced cliche moderation.


"Unevenly balanced cliche moderation"? What the hell does that even mean? Do you even know yourself or have you just stuck a few words together? Please explain, and if you can't explain (with examples) don't even bother saying it in the first place.


----------



## BigBob (Sep 7, 2003)

Just drop it know, starting to go round in circles and get boring!


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> "Unevenly balanced cliche moderation"? What the hell does that even mean? Do you even know yourself or have you just stuck a few words together?


It's when there are a group of people who know the moderators well and the moderation always swings in their favour.


----------



## Mike Marden (Aug 31, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Sure have - just recently.
> 
> http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/61837-320kph-r32-how-many-hp.html
> 
> How about you?


Thanks.... and a good read, as for me, don't post too much, but here was one I've put some input into:-

http://www.gtr.co.uk/forum/upload/62182-funniest-simpsons.html

Mike


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Hugh Keir said:


> I’ll wager that most of the guy’s on here like reading what Keith has to say about his car
> Love watching him driving his car
> Don’t really care that RB Motorsport are not sponsors of this site


Proverbial nail hit on the head


----------



## andy42uk (Sep 17, 2005)

On the point....
I have been knocking around here and the other forum for a few years now, and my opinion is this:-
Quite frankly Keith/RB not paying for a banner add, at its silly low price is beyond belief, and he does _seem_ to take pleasure from 'getting one over' on Cem.
When Keith was doing a 'group buy' on accusump on the other site I asked him a legit question as to it's usefullness in a road or even track car, he used his 'selective hearing' and never resopnded, I guess he got a free one of those as well...... 
I realy appreciate this forum, and mean no dissrespect to anyone, but I feel it is time for Keith etc. to behave like the rest of us and pay his way, nothing more.
I would like him unbanned, and to share his enthusiasm liberally around the site for these great cars, but if it is comercial then he sould pay that small comercial fee...how fair is that?
Andy.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

leggus said:


> Proverbial nail hit on the head


Yep, spot on by Mr. Keir.


----------



## Calendar_Girl (Dec 21, 2003)

R33_GTS-t said:


> It's when there are a group of people who know the moderators well and the moderation always swings in their favour.


Actually! I know Jason O very well, and believe you me, he has told me off! I consider him one of my dearest friends, and he still told me off. No problem, I was in the wrong. 

Suexx


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Calendar_Girl said:


> Actually! I know Jason O very well, and believe you me, he has told me off! I consider him one of my dearest friends, and he still told me off. No problem, I was in the wrong.
> 
> Suexx


Did you get banned?


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

Hugh Keir said:


> Un Ban Keith,
> 
> I don’t think the moderators and their supporters are on the same wave length as Keith.
> 
> ...


None of that is relevant to why he was banned though. He might be the nicest person in the World off the forum, but if he's just going to go around breaking the rules on here - regardless of whether he's your friend or not - then he should expect the exact same treatment as everyone else. Anything less would be double standards and I'm sure no one would be happy with that.



Hugh Keir said:


> Are far from offended when he let’s us in to a secret about which carbon prop he’s using, because most of the carbon props that are available are not reliable.
> 
> Let’s face it guy’s he’s already got his carbon prop and regardless of what discount he gets he unlikely to need another one, so will not personally benefit from talking about it.


Given he got his for free, he will personally benefit if he makes money off the Group Buy he was trying to organise. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the carbon prop shaft received such a glowing review (complete with picture of the companies website URL). Where's all the reviews of the other bits of kit which he presumably doesn't profit from?

How do we know that organising this Group Buy and/or giving the product a glowing review wasn't part of the agreement between him and that company so he would get his free?



Hugh Keir said:


> Then we have the moderators who appear to be of the opinion that any mention of Keith’s car sponsors should somehow be lining their pockets.


Mentioning/pimping sponsors is called "Unauthorised Trade Advertising" on here though Hugh, and if other people aren't allowed to do it why should Keith be allowed to?

Bottom line - if someone wants to make money (i.e. a business) off the back of this forum then they need a trade account. If they don't, they don't have to. I think that's only fair given the exorbitant costs involved in running this forum (hosting & bandwidth), don't you?



Hugh Keir said:


> It’s not enough for this site that the UK’s most famous Skyline owner comes on their forum to pass on a few gems and generally join in, they need their pockets lining as well.


None of us (moderators) get paid a penny so I'm not exactly sure how we would end up "lining our pockets". As far as Cem is concerned, why do you think it's fair that other people should be able to use this forum - it's profile, membership, etc - to make a profit for themselves without giving anything back to it? It's not something for nothing, as far as making money off the back of this forum is concerned.

For what it's worth _I_ enjoy reading about Keiths endeavours with his car, but that doesn't mean he is allowed to do what anyone else would get punished for.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

leggus said:


> Proverbial nail hit on the head


Thats no disrespect to Blow Dog when i say this.. we all know the forum costs money to run, but the bottom line is Keiths car draws people's attention, we wanna know about it..

I think this issue has become more of principal, £25 barely pays for a decent pub meal these days.

And with the introduction of the new google ads i'm sure the forum is covering its overheads now.


----------



## Calendar_Girl (Dec 21, 2003)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Did you get banned?


No! I said he was in the right, and I apologised right away on the thread. And before you ask can't remember what the thread was, but if you want I will trawl through and find it!


Suexx


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> It's when there are a group of people who know the moderators well and the moderation always swings in their favour.


Examples? Like I said, if you can't give specific examples then your statement carries no weight. Give me examples and why the action taken (or lack thereof) was inappropriate, or retract the statement.

Note: saying "I'd rather not say" doesn't count.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus said:


> And with the introduction of the new google ads i'm sure the forum is covering its overheads now.


You're sure are you? Based on what? Guesswork?

They've only been there for about 3 days, last I checked Google don't advance you a payment of several thousand (the sort of money we're talking about for bandwidth costs) in advance.



leggus said:


> Thats no disrespect to Blow Dog when i say this.. we all know the forum costs money to run, but the bottom line is Keiths car draws people's attention, we wanna know about it..


Maybe you can give me a straight answer then seeing as R33_GTS-t seems unable to. Do you think that the fact that Keiths car apparently draws attention to the forum means he should be exempt from the same rules as everyone else? (particularly threats of violence and unsanctioned trade advertising)


----------



## andy42uk (Sep 17, 2005)

leggus said:


> Thats no disrespect to Blow Dog when i say this.. we all know the forum costs money to run, but the bottom line is Keiths car draws people's attention, we wanna know about it..
> 
> I think this issue has become more of principal, £25 barely pays for a decent pub meal these days.
> 
> And with the introduction of the new google ads i'm sure the forum is covering its overheads now.



I HATE to disagree esp. as you have made some very good posts of late.
However You can't rob Peter to pay Paul in business, the rules realy are there for everyones sake, I will not even try to explain why not as I am sure you already know.
It must be a 'principal' thing, the money amount is so small, come on Keith/RB write a cheque please, it is the only fair thing to do.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

andy42uk said:


> On the point....
> I have been knocking around here and the other forum for a few years now, and my opinion is this:-
> Quite frankly Keith/RB not paying for a banner add, at its silly low price is beyond belief, and he does _seem_ to take pleasure from 'getting one over' on Cem.
> When Keith was doing a 'group buy' on accusump on the other site I asked him a legit question as to it's usefullness in a road or even track car, he used his 'selective hearing' and never resopnded, I guess he got a free one of those as well......
> ...


Spot on. Unfortunately you seem to be in a minority as a number of people appear to think that Keith should basically be able to do and say whatever he wants on here, because he happens to have a noteworthy car.

As you've said - I'm sure it's a matter of principal rather than cost, as £25 a month is nothing. Keith could've covered that in a single Group Buy. My gut feeling is that Keith thinks (or at least thought) the rules that apply to everyone else didn't apply to him, and sadly it appears other people seem to think he's entitled to special privileges - including threatening people - simply because of his car.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> You're sure are you? Based on what? Guesswork?
> 
> They've only been there for about 3 days, last I checked Google don't advance you a payment of several thousand (the sort of money we're talking about for bandwidth costs) in advance.



Durzel, like i said, we appreciate the forum being here for free to us non-subscribers, as you say, you 'moderate' for nothing, we come here and contribute our input 'for nothing' too..

What is the forum without its users..


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus said:


> Durzel, like i said, we appreciate the forum being here for free to us non-subscribers, as you say, you 'moderate' for nothing, we come here and contribute our input 'for nothing' too..
> 
> What is the forum without its users..


I don't disagree with you that Keith has achieved a lot with his Skyline, and I myself would like to keep reading about it. _But_ (and it's a big but), if we just let people - anyone - flout the same rules that everyone else is subject to, what does that say about the standards on the forum?


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> Maybe you can give me a straight answer then seeing as R33_GTS-t seems unable to. Do you think that the fact that Keiths car apparently draws attention to the forum means he should be exempt from the same rules as everyone else?


No i dont, i think £25 a month is a small price to pay IF theres monthly advertising going on..

But is it?

The carbon fibre prop i saw advertised on here via keiths pic of the 'box' was the only 'advert' i saw that month..

What if some firms dont advertise very often? Do they still get invoiced a flat rate, regardless of any advertising?


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> N
> 
> For what it's worth _I_ enjoy reading about Keiths endeavours with his car, but that doesn't mean he is allowed to do what anyone else would get punished for.


Don't you understand that the number of hits on this site are linked to the number of advertisers who want to advertise above and how much they're willing to pay? What's one of the things that brings people here? Fast GTRs, like those of Keith, Hugh, Tim and the news of Heat Treatments' achievements. I don't think you're looking at the big picture.

Is Keith a trader? No. At the end of the day he's _just_ a skyline driver like you and me (albeit that his GTR has over 3 times the power of mine). How is Keith pimping RB any different from other customers (including me) doing it in the garages section? It isn't, apart from the fact that people actually give a sh!t because Keith's GTR is a lot faster. 

Does he get freebies for it? Who knows and who cares. Secretly that's what we are all hoping for when mentioning our garage of choice. He's not actually running a business off it, just his car. So how is Keith different? It boils down to the fact that his car is faster. So essentially you're anti-speed. Not the kind of thing we want on a GTR forum really.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus said:


> No i dont, i think £25 a month is a small price to pay IF theres monthly advertising going on..
> 
> But is it?
> 
> ...


I wouldn't know the answer to that I'm afraid, only Cem would. I would imagine a sliding scale would be unworkable without transparency in how much individuals are actually making off the back of selling stuff. As that's not really workable either, the £25 flat fee is a "catch all".

Having said that, with a single Group Buy on carbon prop shafts that cost £1000+ you could load the discounted price by £25 per participant and pay for an entire years trade subscription in one go.


----------



## andy42uk (Sep 17, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Don't you understand that the number of hits on this site are linked to the number of advertisers who want to advertise above and how much they're willing to pay? What's one of the things that brings people here? Fast GTRs, like those of Keith, Hugh, Tim and the news of Heat Treatments' achievements. I don't think you're looking at the big picture.
> 
> Is Keith a trader? No. At the end of the day he's _just_ a skyline driver like you and me (albeit that his GTR has over 3 times the power of mine). How is Keith pimping RB any different from other customers (including me) doing it in the garages section? It isn't, apart from the fact that people actually give a sh!t because Keith's GTR is a lot faster.
> 
> Does he get freebies for it? Who knows and who cares. Secretly that's what we are all hoping for when mentioning our garage of choice. He's not actually running a business off it, just his car. So how is Keith different? It boils down to the fact that his car is faster. So essentially you're anti-speed. Not the kind of thing we want on a GTR forum really.


I never ever realized that in the real world you have no idea, you must be young or something.
I enjoy your dialog normally, but please trust me on this, your way off.


----------



## Alex j B (Apr 24, 2004)

If people on here are such good mates with Keith, why don't you suggest to him he gets in touch with Cem and let them sort it out verbally, if Keith doesn't want to, the ban obviously doesn't bother him, if he does then the two of them can take it from there and come to their own decisions.

It _really_ isn't that difficult to work out!  

Oh, and I'm not bothered if he's banned or not, not too keen on drag racing or reading about what parts are fitted to quick drag Skylines and thats all I've seen Keith post about for a long time, (no disrespect meant by that).

Alex B


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Don't you understand that the number of hits on this site are linked to the number of advertisers who want to advertise above and how much they're willing to pay? What's one of the things that brings people here? Fast GTRs, like those of Keith, Hugh, Tim and the news of Heat Treatments' achievements. I don't think you're looking at the big picture.
> 
> Is Keith a trader? No. At the end of the day he's _just_ a skyline driver like you and me (albeit that his GTR has over 3 times the power of mine). How is Keith pimping RB any different from other customers (including me) doing it in the garages section? It isn't, apart from the fact that people actually give a sh!t because Keith's GTR is a lot faster.
> 
> Does he get freebies for it? Who knows and who cares. Secretly that's what we are all hoping for when mentioning our garage of choice. He's not actually running a business off it, just his car. So how is Keith different? It boils down to the fact that his car is faster. So essentially you're anti-speed. Not the kind of thing we want on a GTR forum really.


Love that straw man argument... I'm "anti-speed" because I believe in applying the rules evenly to everyone on here. How on Earth did you get from what's happened to me "hating speed". You do realise I've owned a 530bhp R34 GTR don't you, and a 411bhp R33 GTR before it.... interesting.

Keith pimping RB is different because RB don't have a trade advertising policy. If you want to pimp Abbey, GT-aRT, etc to your hearts content feel free, you can even mention what latest offers they're running. You know why? Because they *do* have a trade account. It's quite simple, yet somehow you still fail to understand? Strange.

So the mugs/tshirts etc wasn't a business... interesting. Or did you forget that? Short memory perhaps?

By the way, I'm still waiting for that retraction of your previous statement, or examples of unfair moderation...... should I just expect you to keep ignoring anything you can't answer or can you have a stab at it? Go on, please!


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> Having said that, with a single Group Buy on carbon prop shafts that cost £1000+ you could load the discounted price by £25 per participant and pay for an entire years trade subscription in one go.


Yes you could, providing you sold the props... i personally cant justify a grand for a prop right now, neither can most of the people on here, i bet if Keith sold one, he was lucky.

This is the point, if he had an 'Ebay' shop selling all and sundry Skyline parts all cheap and cheerful, then yes, the £25 traders charge is justified..

I know its six of one and half a dozen of the other, but how many props really got sold via Keiths picture of that box....

I'll wager.. nil.


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus said:


> Yes you could, providing you sold the props... i personally cant justify a grand for a prop right now, neither can most of the people on here, i bet if Keith sold one, he was lucky.
> 
> This is the point, if he had an 'Ebay' shop selling all and sundry Skyline parts all cheap and cheerful, then yes, the £25 traders charge is justified..
> 
> ...


Well to be fair it was the pictures, the glowing review, and the fact that Keith is apparently using one himself? I'm sure that's enough for a few people to part with their money - especially if they were going to buy one anyway. If Keith had managed to arrange a significant discount on them off the back of his profile then I'm sure people would be interested in that, and the forum would be perfectly happy with providing the platform from which to sell them - just so long as it is fairly compensated.

I forgot to mention - Group Buys by individuals (non trade account holders) are allowed so long as permission is sought for them in the first place and it is made clear that the person is not profiteering from organising it (other than covering costs).

Call me cynical but I don't think a company will just give out a £1000+ propshaft to someone unless it stands to benefit them in some way, either from an arrangement with the recipient to pimp it to all and sundry or through other means.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> Well to be fair it was the pictures, the glowing review, and the fact that Keith is apparently using one himself? I'm sure that's enough for a few people to part with their money


A similarity can be drawn with government 'business rates'... 

If you are a small concern, and have a unit, you get that invoice from the government regardless of what you sell, how well you do each month, you have to pay.

What happens when Keith or RB or anybody else for that matter isnt advertising, or selling during one month, or, if they are selling, havent met targets?

To many people assume that everbody in business are making bankrolls of money, and i, for one, as a self employed person can assure you all it isnt the case.


----------



## Sean (Aug 16, 2005)

Having just read this thread - I have to say it how sad it that 7 pages have developed from Cem's original statement. 

Its Cem's forum and he makes the rules - I'm happy to abide by them!

R33 (see no Gimpy) can you are undoubtably an intelligent person but can you not show a modicum of restraint and common sense on this one. This is not a subject to debate you personal view of the world it is _completely_ inappropriate and frankly does your reputation more harm then anything you have typed before

Sean


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus said:


> A similarity can be drawn with government 'business rates'...
> 
> If you are a small concern, and have a unit, you get that invoice from the government regardless of what you sell, how well you do each month, you have to pay.
> 
> ...


We're talking about £25 a month here though, it's a trivial amount of money for what you get in return (basically free reign to advertise whatever you want when you want, your own sub-forum, etc). A Skyline garage would make that sort of money selling on a 5L container of oil. 

I agree in principal with what you're saying - it's a tiny amount of money for traders who make thousands, and it's a lot of money for someone who is only ever likely to do one Group Buy. But that said, it is still a trivial amount of money when you consider what benefits you get from it on here.


----------



## brummie (Jan 13, 2004)

leggus said:


> A similarity can be drawn with government 'business rates'...
> 
> If you are a small concern, and have a unit, you get that invoice from the government regardless of what you sell, how well you do each month, you have to pay.
> 
> ...


sorry mate your arguement dosn't wash. I don't think crap bussiness people should get a discount for being crap. 
I'm not taking sides, the rules are clearly defined, if you follow them or not is a matter of personal choice. If you push the boundries(?) you should accept the penalties.
on the other hand, some mod's (correction, one, based on personal experience) can't differentiate their responsibilities as mods and their own "intolerant" opinion. "planet earth calling... "


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> it is still a trivial amount of money when you consider what benefits you get from it on here.


Agreed, in principal.. £300 a year isnt a lot, as long as you make that profit from here, all depends on the amount of succesful advertising.

Keith/RB would most likely make that back easily IF they advertised regularly, like i said, six of one.....


----------



## Durzel (Dec 5, 2001)

leggus: We'll have to agree to disagree. 

Just to say I'm not going to keep perpetuating this thread any further as it just breeds negativity. It's already 7 pages long of just back and forth arguments, it's better left to Cem to comment as appropriate if he has any updates.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> leggus: We'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Just to say I'm not going to keep perpetuating this thread any further as it just breeds negativity. It's already 7 pages long of just back and forth arguments, it's better left to Cem to comment as appropriate if he has any updates.


Durz, i'm not disagreeing with you, i can see both sides.. if Keith and RB are advertising regularly, then they should pay, all i'm saying is i dont see regular adverts, just the odd couple cropping up now and then via 'ambiguous' pics


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

brummie said:


> sorry mate your arguement dosn't wash. I don't think crap bussiness people should get a discount for being crap.


are you the TAXMAN, you sound like him


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Durzel said:


> Call me cynical but I don't think a company will just give out a £1000+ propshaft to someone unless it stands to benefit them in some way, either from an arrangement with the recipient to pimp it to all and sundry or through other means.


Thats the gamble they take.. and if Keith sold 3 or 4 via here, he should pay.

Ask people on here if they bought one because of Keith...


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Durzel said:


> Love that straw man argument... I'm "anti-speed" because I believe in applying the rules evenly to everyone on here. How on Earth did you get from what's happened to me "hating speed". You do realise I've owned a 530bhp R34 GTR don't you, and a 411bhp R33 GTR before it.... interesting.


I've not seen anyone else picked up for complimenting RB and their produce in the garages section, so why Keith? Keith is not an RB employee. Any ascertations that he is, are merely conjecture. Where are your stats?



Durzel said:


> Keith pimping RB is different because RB don't have a trade advertising policy. If you want to pimp Abbey, GT-aRT, etc to your hearts content feel free, you can even mention what latest offers they're running. You know why? Because they do have a trade account. It's quite simple, yet somehow you still fail to understand? Strange.


Keith has the fastest GTR in the UK. Most/all of the work was done by RB as I understand. It's a bit hard for him to torque about his car without mentioning RB. "Great work Keith, where did you get that?" "Oh, I can't say, they don't have a trade account." His car has a big 'RB Motorsport' down the side. Everyone knows where the work is done and where his parts are sourced through, so why make a big deal of it, it's a null issue. "Was that from RB Keith?" "Why no, I simply pulled it out of my butt."

Does every Japanese part manufacturer/trader have an account on here? If not, can we mention their names? Do HKS have an account? Trust? Apexi? JUN? Mines? Blitz?



Durzel said:


> So the mugs/tshirts etc wasn't a business... interesting. Or did you forget that? Short memory perhaps?


Never noticed it. I have more than enough mugs to deal with already.



Durzel said:


> By the way, I'm still waiting for that retraction of your previous statement, or examples of unfair moderation...... should I just expect you to keep ignoring anything you can't answer or can you have a stab at it? Go on, please!


"...have a stab at it." Isn't that against forum rules?:chuckle: How about this e-mail sent after my last ban in response to my question of why I was banned:



> Nothing personal - we were all waiting for either you or Sean to have the first pop - you picked the short straw I guess. Sorry.


Funny how Sean and Mycroft were the ones who started with the 'gimpy' insults. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the insults so long as they expect some back and don't put on their blouses when it happens. But the blouses came out and as it is, I've been banned twice and Sean, not once.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

How many OS units have been sold in the UK as a result of Keith promoting them?
Who fits OS units? 



Guys, most of you make some great reading and I'm happy to see the thread generate into what is essentially a productive topic. There are always going to be disagreements on a forum close to 10,000 members. This is why we have to make black and white rules, there are too many people using this place to have any shades of gray in discretion.

R33 - if you don't answer Durzels question, then you can hop off this thread leaving others with thoughts that you're nothing other than a troll.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Blow Dog said:


> How many OS units have been sold in the UK as a result of Keith promoting them?
> Who fits OS units?
> 
> 
> ...


I've answered it above - last paragraph.

Do OS Giken need an account too? Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Keith has the fastest GTR in the UK. Most/all of the work was done by RB as I understand. It's a bit hard for him to torque about his car without mentioning RB. "Great work Keith, where did you get that?" "Oh, I can't say, they don't have a trade account." His car has a big 'RB Motorsport' down the side. Everyone knows where the work is done and where his parts are sourced through, so why make a big deal of it, it's a null issue. "Was that from RB Keith?" "Why no, I simply pulled it out of my butt."
> 
> Funny how Sean and Mycroft were the ones who started with the 'gimpy' insults. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the insults so long as they expect some back and don't put on their blouses when it happens. But the blouses came out and as it is, I've been banned twice and Sean, not once.


OK please enough, you are sounding ridiculous - you have nothing valid to say and I'm sure I talk on behalf of everyone when I say you do not meet reasoned debate with equal logic - you are an anomoly and should be erased.

This comment I've quoted is just about the most childish response I've yet seen from you (and that's saying a lot).

You've made your point, please move onto another discussion.


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

tarmac terror said:


> Thats like saying "OK, the top 10 biggest BHP Skyline owners can do whatever they want on the forum" coz they're 'special'. *sigh*. Whether I've got a 1000BHP car or a 280BHP car it makes not 1 jot of a difference as I'm sure the vast majority see it on here.
> TT


If it made a difference you could advertise your car in general discussion because "its special" and the mods would happily leave it there!

Banning Keith forever is the admins perogative and has resulted in the Skyline community sadly becoming even more fragmented.

As skyline69uk said the written word can be taken out of context and the omission of just a smiley can cause a tongue in cheek comment to be taken out of context. I have met quite a few guys off here and got on famously with all of them as we all have a similar interest in fast cars and Skylines in particular. I spoke with John (whoflungdung) and he is a damn nice fellow but we had crossed swords a while ago on the forum (I don't think John knew it was me..lol). Someones internet persona is often very different from a face to face chat and that is definitely the case with the situation that is debacle all stemmed from.

The whole mods against RB customers rift has been ongoing since before I joined this forum and from what I understand of the situation it stems from Rods refusal to get involved on the forum and pay for a traders banner. Some of RBs customers (and I include myself) have promoted Rod and when somebody has asked for advice where to go have pointed folk towards RB.

After reading some posts on here and elsewhere by some of the official traders I genuinely applaud Rods non-participation in ANY net forum as the childish bickering is very unproffesional imo and does nothing to convince potential customers of a firms integrity after reading some of the inane drivel that has appeared over the years.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

COSSYCam said:


> After reading some posts on here and elsewhere by some of the official traders I genuinely applaud Rods non-participation in ANY net forum as the childish bickering is very unproffesional imo and does nothing to convince potential customers of a firms integrity after reading some of the inane drivel that has appeared over the years.


You make good points, but I believe this is a little unfair. Companies have been made and un-made on this forum. To discount this place as an irrelevant place of commerce is both grossly invalid and naive.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Blow Dog said:


> OK please enough, you are sounding ridiculous - you have nothing valid to say and I'm sure I talk on behalf of everyone when I say you do not meet reasoned debate with equal logic - you are an anomoly and should be erased.
> 
> This comment I've quoted is just about the most childish response I've yet seen from you (and that's saying a lot).
> 
> You've made your point, please move onto another discussion.


More insults. I'm sick of this thread anyway. Start a discussion and then tell people to move on. Nothing to see here. I'll bid you a due.:wavey:


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

Blow Dog said:


> You make good points, but I believe this is a little unfair. Companies have been made and un-made on this forum. To discount this place as an irrelevant place of commerce is both grossly invalid and naive.


I dont discount the GTR Reg as a valueable aid to any business but applaud Rods commitment in not getting involved regardless of the benefits (both bottom line and social) on the grounds that he personally feels that an owners forum is for the owners to discuss matters and that any trader actively taking part intrinsically has an agenda plus when the shutters go down at the workshop the last thing he wants is to drag his day job into his recreation time.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Blow Dog said:


> You make good points, but I believe this is a little unfair. Companies have been made and un-made on this forum. To discount this place as an irrelevant place of commerce is both grossly invalid and naive.


Cem, its not your right to have people advertise on this forum if they dont want to, albeit as you say, some companies have been made on here, some may not have been, and others dont want to take the risk.. if people dont advertise on here then so be it, if they sneak ambiguous fotos in, sort it out, but dont expect people to automatically subscribe to the forum.

Some people choose to entrust their advertising with gtr.co.uk, some dont... what im seeing lately is sour grapes that people arent subscribing, sorry to be blunt.


----------



## whoflungdung (May 7, 2005)

COSSYCam said:


> I have met quite a few guys off here and got on famously with all of them as we all have a similar interest in fast cars and Skylines in particular. I spoke with John (whoflungdung) and he is a damn nice fellow but we had crossed swords a while ago on the forum (I don't think John knew it was me..lol). Someones internet persona is often very different from a face to face chat and that is definitely the case with the situation that is debacle all stemmed from.


sorry a bit off topic....

so, was it you that was telling me about Keiths car and problems???   

anyhow I agree with what you say, "I am a damn nice fellow" :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

and as I said previous about Keith he seemed a good bloke, didn't realise I had spoken to you also though :shy: :nervous: :shy: :thumbsup:

you seemed a damn reasonable bloke also :thumbsup: 

as with our previous jousting match, it all seems to be about RB

I never doubted his ability, just how I was dealt with(but thats old news)

why doesn't someone from RB pay the £25 a month, surely even Rod can see the benefits

and I'm sure the £25 wouldn't even make a dent in his "Supersized Wallet"

maybe then most of this argument could be laid to rest, and we can all get along a little better perhaps???

how about we arrange one of those bouncy boxing rings for the day :chuckle:  :chuckle:  :chuckle: 

sorry I am just trying to lighten the situation if poss

Dung Boy Out!


----------



## R34Nismo (Oct 3, 2002)

Firstly, I can't believe I let myself get suckered into reading another thread on this done to death subject. 

Quite frankly I have been trying to avoid the subject for a long time, but it was inevitable.

My only comment is that everyone needs to seriously grow up. 

Stop making comments for people you obviously don't know. If the people concerned want to make comments they would in one form or another, ie verbal/phone or otherwise.

If its not first hand information as with a lot of these things, please don't post any more tripe.

This forum is becoming too full of it, the people who need to talk know who they are. 

The people who are talking about it at the moment make no odds in the current situation of things and are just posting opinions which actually don't matter in the scheme of things for they are not the ones who need to communicate.

It is , what it is. Now lets get back to the forum the way it was please. 

If there were Ignore feature for posters on here I would be using this thread as a guage for me to use it.

Thanks, and goodnight from me.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

leggus said:


> Cem, its not your right to have people advertise on this forum if they dont want to, albeit as you say, some companies have been made on here, some may not have been, and others dont want to take the risk.. if people dont advertise on here then so be it, if they sneak ambiguous fotos in, sort it out, but dont expect people to automatically subscribe to the forum.
> 
> Some people choose to entrust their advertising with gtr.co.uk, some dont... what im seeing lately is sour grapes that people arent subscribing, sorry to be blunt.


OK I give up, what on earth does this mean??
I'm now FORCING people to be advertisers? Good god let's not dilute this discussion any more, please 
You think I begrudge £25.00 a month? I don't care who advertises - to do so grants a privilege. If you decide to not advertise, then so be it, just don't expect to be treated the same as paying sponsors!

And this thread has nothing to do with RB - so don't drag them into it as a focus.

Cem


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Blow Dog said:


> And this thread has nothing to do with RB - so don't drag them into it as a focus.
> 
> Cem


It's top publicity for them though. Pete Doherty takes smack. RB have their unofficial demo car driver banned from a prominent gtr community.:chuckle:


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

R34Nismo said:


> Note for Marketing Agencies - McDONALD'S Make your brown carrier bags green in colour so they blend in with the countryside after they've been thrown out of car windows.


So true. :thumbsup:


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Blow Dog said:


> OK I give up, what on earth does this mean??
> I'm now FORCING people to be advertisers? Good god let's not dilute this discussion any more, please
> You think I begrudge £25.00 a month? I don't care who advertises - to do so grants a privilege. If you decide to not advertise, then so be it, just don't expect to be treated the same as paying sponsors!
> 
> ...


What my post meant was, i see this argument being to do with who pays to advertise, and who doesnt..

Admittedly, the **** has been taken, i saw Keiths thread with the foto of the 'box' advertising the prop, but thats down to you to sort out..

Dont get me wrong please, i'm not on anyone's 'side', get your revenue in if it means the site continues.

Just distinguish between who advertises on a regular basis and who doesnt


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

whoflungdung said:


> sorry a bit off topic....
> 
> so, was it you that was telling me about Keiths car and problems???
> 
> anyhow I agree with what you say, "I am a damn nice fellow" :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:


We had a chat at Middlehursts a while back. I could post a photo of myself but better not as I don't want to scare any children that might see this thread :chuckle:

Every Skyline tuner has severely dissatisfied ex-customers with a tale to tell as I have realised having now talked to quite a few other owners face to face with some regarding their personal horror stories. Some I have been told are truely incredible *BUT* if I have only heard the alledegly aggrieved parties version I take note of the tale I stay sceptical until becoming privy to both sides versions if possible. 
95% of these stories are not made public on this or any other forum (except for the "I paid for this and it didn't arrive" or the occasional ringer story) as when someone speaks out of turn about ****** tuner the devotees of that tuner will jump on the whistleblower.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

leggus said:


> What my post meant was, i see this argument being to do with who pays to advertise, and who doesnt..
> 
> Admittedly, the **** has been taken, i saw Keiths thread with the foto of the 'box' advertising the prop, but thats down to you to sort out..
> 
> ...


Yes and unfortunately that's the hardest thing. We don't know who're real traders so can only go by what our instincts tell us.

You know, it's not actually about the money. I'm actually not THAT bothered by the fact that this site costs money to run. Fact is, I can afford it AND I really, genuinely enjoy it (otherwise I wouldn't be posting 23:45 on a Sat night  ), however, it IS a matter of principle that traders acknowledge the benefit from advertising here and I am not taken advantage of.


----------



## COSSYCam (Nov 16, 2004)

Blow Dog said:


> And this thread has nothing to do with RB - so don't drag them into it as a focus.
> 
> Cem


Apologies for taking the thread off topic but I genuinely felt it was pertinent to say what I said as this is IIRC my only comment on the sorry situation.


----------



## leggus (Feb 15, 2006)

Blow Dog said:


> You know, it's not actually about the money.


Yes absolutely, its about the pi$$ being taken, thats human nature... lifes a game


----------



## stevenh (Oct 18, 2004)

close this thread


----------



## stu0x (Jun 30, 2002)

...

your jedi mind tricks need some work


----------



## stevenh (Oct 18, 2004)

stu0x said:


> ...
> 
> your jedi mind tricks need some work



why dont you sod off and reply to something constructive


----------



## Jason abz (Oct 3, 2002)

You know, i can`t help but thinking this whole situation would not have escalated into anything if the two parties involved ie Cem & Keith were the only two parties involved.
From what i have seen on the forum Keith has rairly said anything that bad apart from the obvious cheeky flaunting of the traders rules which i am sure Cem and him could have sorted out however there seems to be a couple of people diving into other threads and discussions bringing up comparisons between that and Keiths etc and, imho, with very little intention of doing anything but rubbing up Cem and the mods the wrong way. 
Obviously this recent flexing of muscles in planet "reality" that seems to be bragged about is a seperate issue that has come about due to too many cooks again.
To all those involved, shame on you, let Cem and Keith sort it out between themselves and butt out of posting your vaguely related bickerings and stirring.
Just my 2p. 
For what its worth and just for a return to normality, i will happily pay the £25 for Keith to be given trader status, not because i take anyones side, simply because its sickening to see such good freinds of old all scrapping on this place........oh and real life now it would seem.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

stevenh said:


> why dont you sod off and reply to something constructive


:chuckle:


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Jason abz said:


> You know, i can`t help but thinking this whole situation would not have escalated into anything if the two parties involved ie Cem & Keith were the only two parties involved.
> From what i have seen on the forum Keith has rairly said anything that bad apart from the obvious cheeky flaunting of the traders rules which i am sure Cem and him could have sorted out however there seems to be a couple of people diving into other threads and discussions bringing up comparisons between that and Keiths etc and, imho, with very little intention of doing anything but rubbing up Cem and the mods the wrong way.
> Obviously this recent flexing of muscles in planet "reality" that seems to be bragged about is a seperate issue that has come about due to too many cooks again.
> To all those involved, shame on you, let Cem and Keith sort it out between themselves and butt out of posting your vaguely related bickerings and stirring.
> ...


What we need is a team-building weekend.


----------



## ma1lik (May 17, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> What we need is a team-building weekend.


:chuckle: :clap: 

How about a GTR forum meet up at Hewits farm???  we could all go fruit picking and throw rotten apples at each other


----------



## Blow Dog (Sep 4, 2001)

well look, i'd hate to go back on my word, but I think this has been a valuable discussion but little more can be added to it.

Cheers, all.


----------

