Where's the Scotsman Thread?

[roger 62]

Was just posting contact details for the editor and Helen Martin @ the Scotsman- and asking who'd bother to put an opposing view and it was pulled.

Are we just accepting this ill-informed twaddle & going to watch our sport get banned?



R

[Pavel]

It seems its been removed. It was posted on here and "non-airguns", maybe that's why??

Nothing wrong with either threads from what I saw, or was there??

[roger 62]

Not on NAG either. I saw nothing wrong either. 'Political pressure'? D-Notice?? Could someone advise just how passive we're going to be?

Don't want to embarass the board owners, if it's not acceptable here we can discuss it on other boards - at least I'm assuming we can.

R

[urx]

dunno if there was some content problem but cant see anyone having an issue with responding to this peddling of half lies and emotive nonsense.

If the same 'standards' were applied I'm sure we could come up with a convincing angle about 'evil' journalists' with their rather oblique approach to conveying truth or news

We must have some right to reply on this

[seaton7392]

Talk of a ban is banned!!

[Gary C]

I'm guessing somebody said something OTT ? threats or abuse of Journo's ?
I didn't see it but that's the usual reason

[urx]

it would certainly be likely to evince that level of response from someone

[HarryPotter]

I placed her below Trisha on an evolutionary scale, perhaps that was the nail in the coffin?

[Terry D]

Did you see some of the 'replies' to that thread on the non-airgun forum? They were exactly what the 'author' of that piece would have used to confirm its validity - and just one of those would have been all that was required.

Also, the piece of garbage in question, while under discussion as we speak, certainly doesn't merit further exposure on here. That 'article' was created to inflame and score shock-points on the back of a genuine tragedy. To allow it to fulfill its purpose on here would be a victory for the ignorant, callous creature that penned it.

The phrase 'beneath contempt' is entirely appropriate, here.

[roger 62]

Sorry Terry didn't see it on NAG so looked fine to me

You may want to 'sub' my Scottish Issues Thread then

OOPS

R

[roger 62]

Sorry Terry didn't see it on NAG so looked fine to me

You may want to 'sub' my Scottish Issues Thread then

OOPS

R

Oh you have - now that's what I call subbing!

I'm writing to Mr McGurk anyway - while I still have the right

[HarryPotter]

Did you see some of the 'replies' to that thread on the non-airgun forum? They were exactly what the 'author' of that piece would have used to confirm its validity - and just one of those would have been all that was required.

Also, the piece of garbage in question, while under discussion as we speak, certainly doesn't merit further exposure on here. That 'article' was created to inflame and score shock-points on the back of a genuine tragedy. To allow it to fulfill its purpose on here would be a victory for the ignorant, callous creature that penned it.

The phrase 'beneath contempt' is entirely appropriate, here.

Sounds spot on to me.