ForumGarden

A couple at my church that I thought were my friends recently had a wedding and when I saw the pictures on Facebook it looked like I was the only one not invited. I even saw this a pic of this girl that they just met three weeks ago that just started coming to my church at the wedding. Did they really invite someone they had just met three weeks before their wedding to their wedding and not me? I have been going there a year. Also, I saw that they just added this person on Facebook three weeks ago.

jashley;1464140 wrote: A couple at my church that I thought were my friends recently had a wedding and when I saw the pictures on Facebook it looked like I was the only one not invited. I even saw this a pic of this girl that they just met three weeks ago that just started coming to my church at the wedding. Did they really invite someone they had just met three weeks before their wedding to their wedding and not me? I have been going there a year. Also, I saw that they just added this person on Facebook three weeks ago.


And what denomination is this church of yours?

jashley;1464140 wrote: A couple at my church that I thought were my friends recently had a wedding and when I saw the pictures on Facebook it looked like I was the only one not invited. I even saw this a pic of this girl that they just met three weeks ago that just started coming to my church at the wedding. Did they really invite someone they had just met three weeks before their wedding to their wedding and not me? I have been going there a year. Also, I saw that they just added this person on Facebook three weeks ago.




Are you for real, jashley ? Why don't you introduce yourself properly, and tell us a bit about yourself - your country, maybe the area in that country.

Sorry if you think I'm being a little off-hand, but you are yet another newbie who doesn't come across as very genuine !!!! At the moment I feel that you are just messing about ! Apologies if I'm wrong.

I've been thinking the same thing. There's been several (or more likely 1 clone) with similar hard-luck stories, and then disappearing until such time as 'another' one appears.

FourPart;1464154 wrote: I've been thinking the same thing. There's been several (or more likely 1 clone) with similar hard-luck stories, and then disappearing until such time as 'another' one appears.


Think it but don't say it. There is no evidence that this is a clone of another. For now we do not know if this is a genuine member or not.

If it is a genuine member, how welcome do they feel right now?

not very.

If there was a definite problem here that screamed out something not right for sure the moderators would point it out. Meanwhile could members please refrain from second guessing someone's genuineness or not.

I think I'd find another church or better yet, go for a walk in nature for an hour on Sunday.

G#Gill;1464151 wrote: Are you for real, jashley ?


I think that Jashley may be joshing.

Perhaps James may just be extremely annoyed. Furious. Livid, incapable of allowing this gross insult to fade into the past without screaming it from the rooftops. That would explain why he's signed up here to display his ire and get feedback to brandish under the noses of the wedding organizers. The fact that the post shares its style and wide distribution with the undercover marketing of low-grade independent films - Shrooms springs to mind here - is unfortunate, but it may be entirely coincidental.

James, you obviously pissed the bride and groom off before the wedding invites were sent out. For some reason you can't recall the offense, but nobody making a wedding list is just going to forget your existence, you were left off for good reason. Do not seek revenge. Do not buy weaponry and cause a bloodbath the way inept scriptwriters would have you do. Repent, send them an email apologizing for your behavior. Move State. Enlist in the Marines and get decorated for bravery just to show them you're not what they currently think of you. Better yet, go for a walk with Snooz for an hour on Sunday.

spot;1464172 wrote: Perhaps James ..... post shares its style and wide distribution with the undercover marketing of low-grade independent films ......


Not the Brothers Grimm surely!

spot;1464172 wrote: James ....... Enlist in the Marines and get decorated for bravery just to show them you're not what they currently think of you......


"The Three Feathers".

Attached files

High Threshold;1464175 wrote: "The Three Feathers".
I'm distressed to observe that although I red the book in my youth I no longer recall the name of the author. A.E.W. Mason perhaps. I'm not even sure it wasn't four feathers rather than three that he wrote about, three feathers sounds more like the Prince of Wales. I dimly recall someone made a film of the novel eventually too. And I'm quite certain Kipling published the plot first, long before Mason cashed in on it.

spot;1464178 wrote: I'm distressed to observe that although I red the book in my youth I no longer recall the name of the author. A.E.W. Mason perhaps. I'm not even sure it wasn't four feathers rather than three that he wrote about, three feathers sounds more like the Prince of Wales. I dimly recall someone made a film of the novel eventually too. And I'm quite certain Kipling published the plot first, long before Mason cashed in on it.


That's one of the many advantages of youth. I've managed to get old and decrepit ... and my memory has gone off. Of course you're right: "The Four Feathers": A. E. W. Mason. "The Three Feathers" by the Brothers Grimm also exists but it's not what I (nor you) was thinking of. Thanks for putting me right, Spotty! :yh_worshp

The Three Feathers sounds more like a Pub.

FourPart;1464181 wrote: The Three Feathers sounds more like a Pub.




I'm trying to come up with something witty about why FOUR feathers would exclude any pub from adapting its name whereas THREE of them would be a natural choice. I've come up empty-handed, other than the Prince of Wales' feathers.

Attached files

As a point of observation and in my wife's absence, two days ago Oscar questioned a new membrs post asking for advice. Her post was deleted and she received two private messages stating that she may be putting off a new member from returning.

Here we have three members calling out the new member and not only do those post remain but the thread has been taken off topic and if this member is genuine, it appears they are being mocked.

Peter Lake;1464192 wrote: As a point of observation and in my wife's absence, two days ago Oscar questioned a new membrs post asking for advice. Her post was deleted and she received two private messages stating that she may be putting off a new member from returning.

Here we have three members calling out the new member and not only do those post remain but the thread has been taken off topic and if this member is genuine, it appears they are being mocked.


Just playing with the possibilites here.

It COULD be that Oscar made a direct accusation while "the other 3" made indirect comments?

Just playing with the possibilities, as I say. What do you think?

High Threshold;1464193 wrote: Just playing with the possibilites here.

It COULD be that Oscar made a direct accusation while "the other 3" made indirect comments?

Just playing with the possibilities, as I say. What do you think?


I am making no accusations toward those who have posted here. I just think that consistency is the issue. The thread has gone way off and if this is a genuine new member, they may not wish to return, the very point made to Oscar when what she posted was that she had seen the post before. The calling out and mocking here is far more off putting than anything Oscar wrote that saw the wrath of a moderator.

Call me old fashioned but i just prefer fairness and consistency.

Peter Lake;1464196 wrote: Call me old fashioned but i just prefer fairness and consistency.
Consistency involves the intelligent use of Google. This thread's opening post has a hundred copies spread over sites like - naming just the more amusing ones - customerssuck, theologyweb, dogforums, bodybuilding, catholic, mastiff-forum, babycenter, europeluxurycarhire and more and more and more. The newbie post oscar flared at has no copies out there at all, that one was an original post aimed solely at forumgarden.

Does the explanation help?

Peter Lake;1464196 wrote: I am making no accusations toward those who have posted here.


I know.



Peter Lake;1464196 wrote: I just think that consistency is the issue. The thread has gone way off and if this is a genuine new member, they may not wish to return, the very point made to Oscar when what she posted was that she had seen the post before. The calling out and mocking here is far more off putting than anything Oscar wrote that saw the wrath of a moderator.


It has gone way off, yes. Personally, I think it's the OP's responsibility to put it back on track by responding. So far ..... nothing. No thanks. No explanation. No complaint. If "we" then persist in taking it off-course then it's the admin's job to interject a nudge. But as far as Oscar's comment being removed - I don't recall what it was. If it was in breach of the rules, well ....... fair dues. If not - then you're right to complain.



Peter Lake;1464196 wrote: Call me old fashioned .....


Only if you insist.

spot;1464197 wrote: Consistency involves the intelligent use of Google. This thread's opening post has a hundred copies spread over sites like - naming just the more amusing ones - customerssuck, theologyweb, dogforums, bodybuilding, catholic, mastiff-forum, babycenter, europeluxurycarhire and more and more and more. The newbie post oscar flared at has no copies out there at all, that one was an original post aimed solely at forumgarden.

Does the explanation help? The post Oscar questioned also had similar copies out there, not identical granted but she searched and found very close to it.

Considering Oscar had her post removed, you should have made it very clear here from the start that you had searched google and found replica's. That would have at the very least explained why you mocked the poster and excused it.

Well, I'm home now.

Let's leave It.... It's unimportant.

Peter Lake;1464200 wrote: The post Oscar questioned also had similar copies out there, not identical granted but she searched and found very close to it.
Cock and bull, Peter. Produce links. It's untrue.

Oscar Namechange;1464201 wrote: Well, I'm home now.




Glad you're back! Where were you anyway? You weren't off to some wedding to give a certain someone a good bollocking, were you?

High Threshold;1464205 wrote: Glad you're back! Where were you anyway? You weren't off to some wedding to give a certain someone a good bollocking, were you?Nah - more like been out for a good punch up.

High Threshold;1464205 wrote: Glad you're back! Where were you anyway? You weren't off to some wedding to give a certain someone a good bollocking, were you?


Something far more tedious I'm afraid... Party stuff

Peter Lake;1464200 wrote: Considering Oscar had her post removed, you should have made it very clear here from the start that you had searched google and found replica's. That would have at the very least explained why you mocked the poster and excused it.Might I also note that I haven't "mocked the poster" anywhere in this thread and I take exception to being accused of it.

Further, the deletion of oscar's post was, until you mentioned it on an open thread, an internal matter here. I see very little reason why you should make a public issue of it other than to make yet another unwarrantable criticism of moderator competence on this site. And if I sound unhappy with your post from which I'm quoting, it's because I am.

FourPart;1464206 wrote: Nah - more like been out for a good punch up. Me ?

FourPart;1464206 wrote: Nah - more like been out for a good punch up.


She does like a good bash now and then, our Oscar.





Oscar Namechange;1464212 wrote: Me ?


Yes, confess. I noticed Peter had to remove his photo for a few days to let the swelling of his eye go down.

And even then he blamed it on a kick from the horse.

FourPart;1464216 wrote: And even then he blamed it on a kick from the horse.


:yh_rotfl It's nearing 9 PM here and I normally start winding down for the night about this time!

I asked people to stop second guessing in post 5.



We do check out newbies, they get watched, a lot of genuine people have been put off FG after receiving an odd reception from long term members.

Some people may not have come across forums before and may not realise that long term members expect them to do things the 'correct' way with an introduction in the introductions section, not everyone is forum savvy.

Betty Boop;1464232 wrote: I asked people to stop second guessing in post 5.



We do check out newbies, they get watched, a lot of genuine people have been put off FG after receiving an odd reception from long term members.

Some people may not have come across forums before and may not realise that long term members expect them to do things the 'correct' way with an introduction in the introductions section, not everyone is forum savvy.


Thank you Betty... Yes you did.... However, I do have to agree with Peter that had Spot of posted earlier on that the OP was a duplicate from other forums, the question would not have arisen as to why those posts here remained. Members here are not mind readers. They see one post deleted but not others. Unless the Info Is there as to why, then It can be misleading/

Oscar Namechange;1464233 wrote: They see one post deleted but not others.
How do they do that, oscar?

Oscar Namechange;1464233 wrote: Thank you Betty... Yes you did.... However, I do have to agree with Peter that had Spot of posted earlier on that the OP was a duplicate from other forums, the question would not have arisen as to why those posts here remained. Members here are not mind readers. They see one post deleted but not others. Unless the Info Is there as to why, then It can be misleading/


No idea why he didn't but also wonder why should he have to? This is about moderators once again being questioned, we are here as volunteers, we see a newbie we check it out, we don't always write a report, if we did we would get nothing else done.

Can it just be stated that no one needs to post anything negative towards potential new posters, indeed think it just don't post it. Then if the newbie is genuine they are not left puzzling over the manner of other posters toward them. I'm pretty sure this has come up before. I know we get invaded with spammers, a lot don't make it through the first set of barriers and there are those annoying ones that do make it through. However, now and again we have a real person trying to make a contact with us and they may end up faced with a load of negativity.

I don't believe that is what any of us want for this forum.

spot;1464234 wrote: How do they do that, oscar?


The night I made my post on the other thread, before It was deleted by you, there were several watchers on that thread the same time as me.

They may have noticed my post disappeared and equally possible that they may be wondering why you allowed the posts here to remain.

Oscar Namechange;1464236 wrote: The night I made my post on the other thread, before It was deleted by you, there were several watchers on that thread the same time as me.

They may have noticed my post disappeared and equally possible that they may be wondering why you allowed the posts here to remain.


Ah. When you wrote "Members here are not mind readers. They see one post deleted but not others" I thought you were referring to the membership as a whole, not a smattering of members. I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably interpret it differently.

Betty Boop;1464235 wrote: No idea why he didn't but also wonder why should he have to? This is about moderators once again being questioned, we are here as volunteers, we see a newbie we check it out, we don't always write a report, if we did we would get nothing else done.

Can it just be stated that no one needs to post anything negative towards potential new posters, indeed think it just don't post it. Then if the newbie is genuine they are not left puzzling over the manner of other posters toward them. I'm pretty sure this has come up before. I know we get invaded with spammers, a lot don't make it through the first set of barriers and there are those annoying ones that do make it through. However, now and again we have a real person trying to make a contact with us and they may end up faced with a load of negativity.

I don't believe that is what any of us want for this forum.
That's the most common sense I've seen here.

Let's leave It at that...

Betty Boop;1464232 wrote: ....... a lot of genuine people have been put off FG after receiving an odd reception from long term members.

Some people may not have come across forums before and may not realise that long term members expect them to do things the 'correct' way with an introduction in the introductions section, not everyone is forum savvy.


All true. I've registered with a couple of discussion forums and have been put off right from the start, never to return.

Worse are the “shared interest forums. There are a number of bonsai discussion groups on the net. I've been to a few of them where an older member gets showered with thanks and praise for his/her advice, despite it being strictly superficial insight to an in-depth question. I have quite a few years of experience in the technique, but as a forum-newbie lending more pertinent or specific advice have got nary a “thank you or any recognition that my reply was even read. Consequently, I'm no longer so eager to lend any advice. I still use those forums for my own needs, but I don't hang about making friends there.

High Threshold;1464241 wrote: All true. I've registered with a couple of discussion forums and have been put off right from the start, never to return.

Worse are the “shared interest forums. There are a number of bonsai discussion groups on the net. I've been to a few of them where an older member gets showered with thanks and praise for his/her advice, despite it being strictly superficial insight to an in-depth question. I have quite a few years of experience in the technique, but as a forum-newbie lending more pertinent or specific advice have got nary a “thank you or any recognition that my reply was even read. Consequently, I'm no longer so eager to lend any advice. I still use those forums for my own needs, but I don't hang about making friends there.


Well, the people that will really need the information you share will appreciate it, even though the old hats may resent your knowledge. I see the same thing in a cooking forum, and an auto-repair forum.

The Old Hats will always find some minor point that is ripe for correction, just to show a n00B up.

High Threshold;1464241 wrote: All true. I've registered with a couple of discussion forums and have been put off right from the start, never to return.

Worse are the “shared interest forums. There are a number of bonsai discussion groups on the net. I've been to a few of them where an older member gets showered with thanks and praise for his/her advice, despite it being strictly superficial insight to an in-depth question. I have quite a few years of experience in the technique, but as a forum-newbie lending more pertinent or specific advice have got nary a “thank you or any recognition that my reply was even read. Consequently, I'm no longer so eager to lend any advice. I still use those forums for my own needs, but I don't hang about making friends there.


That always happens on foums... the one's who have been there longest seem to believe they are the oracles of all wisdom. Or members so frightened of them, It's all suck up time when they actually contribute nothing.

I get It all the time In National Hunt racing. There's even those who think a woman can not possibly know anything.

LarsMac;1464246 wrote: Well, the people that will really need the information you share will appreciate it ...


I wonder. If they can't even say "thanks" then they'll be out of luck next time. And every time thereafter.

LarsMac;1464246 wrote: I see the same thing in a cooking forum, and an auto-repair forum.

The Old Hats will always find some minor point that is ripe for correction, just to show a n00B up.


Yes, I can imagine you have experienced the very same thing over there. And it has the opposite effect of the “be kind and pass it on theory. Gosh! The world would be such a great place without humans. :wah:

Oscar Namechange;1464251 wrote: ..... It's all suck up time ...


I know. It is soooooo disgusting to see superlatives being lavished onto some of the most trite observation but not even a "thank you" to others. "Suck up" - that describes it alright.



Oscar Namechange;1464251 wrote:

I get It all the time In National Hunt racing. There's even those who think a woman can not possibly know anything.


Yes. I remember you contributed an interesting post on that very subject a couple of months ago.

High Threshold;1464256 wrote: I know. It is soooooo disgusting to see superlatives being lavished onto some of the most trite observation but not even a "thank you" to others. "Suck up" - that describes it alright.





Yes. I remember you contributed an interesting post on that very subject a couple of months ago. It's not about picking winners... It's about giving Info that can lead others to make their own choices. I defy anyone to have the wealth of statistics I can summon up on any National Hunt race horse throughout history but some places, oh she's a woman !!!

Oscar Namechange;1464265 wrote: It's not about picking winners... It's about giving Info that can lead others to make their own choices. I defy anyone to have the wealth of statistics I can summon up on any National Hunt race horse throughout history but some places, oh she's a woman !!!


That's so incredibly dumb in this day & age, isn't it?

AnneBoleyn;1464267 wrote: That's so incredibly dumb in this day & age, isn't it?


Ach! What do you know about it! You're only a woman, Anne!

High Threshold;1464269 wrote: Ach! What do you know about it! You're only a woman, Anne!


Are you sure about that? Just kidding, LOL!

AnneBoleyn;1464272 wrote: Are you sure about that? Just kidding, LOL!


Uhhhhhhhhhhh ............. :-3

Oscar Namechange;1464265 wrote: It's not about picking winners... It's about giving Info that can lead others to make their own choices. I defy anyone to have the wealth of statistics I can summon up on any National Hunt race horse throughout history but some places, oh she's a woman !!!
So's Princess Anne - and she's an Olympic Gold Medalist with horses.

FourPart;1464280 wrote: So's Princess Anne - and she's an Olympic Gold Medalist with horses.


True but I am sure Princess Anne would not be able to tell you how many lengths Buroughhill Lad won the 1982 Hennessy by, what weight he carried, when he came off the bridle as well as every other horse In the race In an Instant... as an example

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if she could.

FourPart;1464280 wrote: So's Princess Anne - and she's an Olympic Gold Medalist with horses.


The admiration of her knowledge (despite her being a woman) doesn't qualify. No. That comes under the second part of this mini-discussion: "members so frightened ..... It's all suck up time"