BANHAMMER!

After complaining vociferously of being banned from the No Tesco Superstore page on Facebook (for endless, vicious and unfounded insults), the admin (John Hamilton) of the opposing Yes To Tesco’s page has decided to ban myself.

Rather than come up with any kind of actual argument (other than continued insults) to defend Robert John Wheeler’s despicable wishes that Arlington House had been destroyed by fire, John Hamilton has decided to engage in censorship of the crassest kind.

You can almost taste the irony.

The original, pre-ban conversation is displayed below*:

Fire_Blog_Total

* wonkiness of screenshot pastes is not entirely due to consumption of Grey Goose…

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “BANHAMMER!

  1. The trash needed taking out, and as the nimby site seem to be unable to defend their laughable position, and ban have to ban people who best them in post after post, it was decided that the “Yes page members should no longer have to put up with bullshit form Barnes, hence his removal.

    Now stop whining and go and find some intellectually lacking nimbys to impress at Arlington πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      It’s clear from my blog post that the only reason you banned me is because you couldn’t defend Robert John Wheeler’s indefensible comments, whereas you were banned from the Yes page for repeatedly making unfounded, vicious insults and presenting misinformation as fact, without any credible evidence.

      No whining from me John, but it seems like I’ve hit a nerve based on how many comments you’ve posted on my blog in such a short period of time.

      Maybe if you had put as much effort into actually coming up with a credible argument, rather than resort to the banhammer, you would have had more validity. But then again, I think the spring of bile in you is too strong for that and would always erupt sooner or later.

      Geoff

      • No no Banres *bless*, as stated, you were banned because you are a bullshitting cock with nothing to offer πŸ™‚

        Perhaps get your carer to explain the concept to you πŸ˜‰ A credible argument would be a wasted on you as a bicycle to a fish, I still await a credible argument against the store, but I know you are inacapable of form a thought, let alone an intelligent comment.

        Now stop whining, and get one of the staff to give you a biscuit πŸ™‚

      • John,

        See, all you can do is resort to insults and infer that I’m in some kind of care. If you have credible evidence, present it (without your usual misrepresentations, if you don’t mind).

        You banned me only because you couldn’t counter my arguments, so used insults, post deletions and finally the banhammer.

        I guess I should say thank you for continually proving my point that all you have is bile and lies.

        Geoff

  2. To my credit I was banned long ago … and it amuses me to see the same tactics deployed.

    I’m surprised Hammy has not resorted to what is the officially lowest form of argument on the internet : Reductio ad Hitlerum.

    I argue very well. Ask any of my few remaining friends. But seriously, to attempt a reasoned debate with Mr Hamilton would be nothing more than a waste of time. I prefer to give him enough rope and make sure we have plenty of popcorn in.

    • Yep you’re right, we still don;t put up with clueless fools Whatabout, hence you and Barnes have no place on our pages πŸ™‚

      • Keep telling yourself that John. The only reason you banned me was because I wouldn’t toe the line and were asking questions you could not answer. You tried to resort to insults to goad me and when that didn’t work, deleted my posts then banned me outright. Which is all clear from the screenshots posted.

        Whataboutery, if you were also banned by John then I can only assume you are a reasonable, decent and intelligent person. John certainly seems to have a strong aversion to anyone with intelligence, eloquence and a sense of morality.

  3. Oh Barnes, you were asked to post something intelligent, you failed, and were removed πŸ™‚

    I don’t allow tards to be ridiculed, hence you had to be protected πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      Everyone can see the screenshots of the thread where you first deleted my posts, then banned me. The only reasons you did so was because I didn’t toe the line and didn’t rise to your insults, which is your only riposte. But you keep telling yourself those lies if you want.

      Geoff

      • “post something intelligent, or STFU, I will no longer tolerate your BS here”

        You were then given a further 30 minutes to post something intelligent, you failed, and to the relief of every intelligent reader of Facebook, you were rightly removed, thus doubling the average IQ of the group instantly.

        Don’t blame your failings on others, there’s a good boy πŸ˜‰

  4. John, there is no way you *wouldn’t* have banned me, unless I’d recanted and started toeing the party line you dictate to everyone. It has nothing to do with posting “something intelligent” as I could post something very intelligent and highly accurate and if you didn’t happen to agree with the content you would have banned me anyway, regardless of it’s intelligence.

    Which is what happened. What you relied on was that all people would see was your one-sided argument without my responses and you hoped they would be none the wiser as to what *really* went on, which is you banned me because you couldn’t control my comments and because you couldn’t defend Robert John Wheeler except for making insults.

    Now John, do you really want to get into the whole IQ thing?

    “(oh and it’s towing dumbfuck πŸ˜‰ )”

    If you’re going to correct someone on their spelling (which you yourself keep saying is the act of the defeated) then you should *really* make sure you get it right. If my IQ is so low, but I knew the correct spelling of “toeing” and you didn’t, then your IQ must be so far below mine that it’s basically zero.

    Which kind of makes sense, what with all the insults about carers and poor intelligence. They say to stick with what you know and these feature so prominently in most of your posts…

  5. Now Barnes, once again all you have proved is you make laughable claims you simply have no evidence to support.

    You were offered the chance to say something intelligent, failed and were rightly removed to save my readers from having to put up with your inane and witless bullshit. Best you stick with what you knoiw Barnes, as you have proved many times, you know fuck all my boy πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      The evidence is right there at the top of this post and it completely disproves your point. You have yet to post any evidence to disprove that the only reason you banned me was for not toeing the line and for not responding to your (inevitable) insults.

      Geoff

  6. Clearly not Barnes my boy πŸ˜‰

    As the thread clearly proves, you were offered the chance to say something intelligent (something you have STILL failed to do thus far πŸ™‚ ), failed and were rightly removed to save my readers from having to put up with your inane and witless bullshit. Best you stick with what you knoiw Barnes, as you have proved many times, you know fuck all my boy πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      You dived in to defend Robert John Wheeler’s reprehensibly flippant comment on the Arlington House fire, threw insults at me then banned me after deleting my comments. That’s it. You engage in crass censorship of anyone who does not toe the line you dictate. And at the very least, I know the correct usage of “toe” and “tow”, which is more than can be said of you.

      I also know that it wouldn’t have mattered what I had posted after you demanded I write something “intelligent”; you would have banned me regardless in order to defend Robert John Wheeler and to preserve the overall tone of the Yes page (that of unrelenting and unchallenged bile and insults).

      You were banned from the No page for making those very same insults, then exclaim that it was because they couldn’t answer your comments. People did, but you still insulted them. If you’d managed to maintain even a small level of decorum, you would probably have remained able to post (without resorting to creating multiple Facebook accounts, against the Ts & Cs of Facebook). But your vicious nature shone through and your insults continued, so you were banned.

      And now you seem bent on vengeance by banning anyone who does not agree with you and covering it up by demanding “intelligent” comments, when everyone knows by that you actually mean you will only permit comments which agree 100% with what you espouse on the Yes page.

  7. Once again Barnes my boy,

    As the thread clearly proves, you were offered the chance to say something intelligent (something you have STILL failed to do thus far πŸ™‚ ), failed and were rightly removed to save my readers from having to put up with your inane and witless bullshit. Best you stick with what you knoiw Barnes, as you have proved many times, you know fuck all my boy πŸ˜‰

    I ban fools, dickheads and those with single figure IQ’s, you and James clearly hit all 3 criteria. Sadly the nimby page cannot answer any kind of challenge, hence my removal. Penegelly clearly needs all the protection the dumbfuck can get, exposing his brainless bullshit is as easy as buying a sunday paper.

    • John,

      It’s very simple. You were banned from the No page because you couldn’t stop yourself from proving that all you can do is make insults and present wild accusations without any kind of evidence. Which you keep doing here, over and over.

      I note that you’re not bothering to ‘correct’ me on “toeing” any more. But then that’s you all over, the one time you genuinely thought you had the better of me you revealed yourself to be truly ignorant and exposed your own intellectual failures. Then tried to cover it up through insult. And oh look, we’re back to you doing it again.

      Geoff

    • This is straight off Yes to Arlington and shows you do encourage those with low intelligence ”

      David Cory I had a girlfriend with crabs once

      24 July at 09:10 via mobile Β· Like Β· 1..

      YES to Tesco’s at Arlington, Margate, a welcome investment That they do Corrina, however, when the nimbys try to dictate to everyone else what can go next to their particular rock, then they need to simply crawl back under their stone, and realise that the majority will get their way ”
      So just to clarify your statement Hammy why didn’t you remove David Cory then?
      BTW who are Cardy’s solicitors then?

  8. Once again Barnes my boy,

    As the thread clearly proves, you were offered the chance to say something intelligent (something you have STILL failed to do thus far πŸ™‚ ), failed and were rightly removed to save my readers from having to put up with your inane and witless bullshit. Best you stick with what you knoiw Barnes, as you have proved many times, you know fuck all my boy πŸ˜‰ What;s the point in trying to correct a dumbfuck such as you Barnes when clearly such high level grammatical issues are WAY beyond you.

    Oh of course your not banned James, How could I ban my lil pet fuckwit, we need someone to laugh at πŸ™‚

    Now boy, what were you saying about Cardy’s financial standing again, fancy repeating it again…. πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      You tried to correct me on my grammar, but only revealed how ignorant you really are. Like every other mistake you make (and believe me, there are almost too many to count), you then try to deflect attention from it by throwing a paddy and insulting people.

      Just like you’re trying to do here.

      Keep going John, please. With every post you make you reinforce my points and reveal your true nature even more.

  9. No boy, I DID correct you, you are simply to stupid to understand the education. I still await you making an intelligent point, nothing so far πŸ˜‰

    Run along now now boy you are really starting to look as big a cock as James πŸ˜‰

    • John,

      Making a fool of yourself by so forthrightly telling someone they’re using “toeing the line” instead of “towing” doesn’t mean you corrected me. It means you don’t understand the language and tried to cover it up with subsequent insults.

      If you can provide a credible link to a dictionary definition showing that it is not “toeing the line”, I’ll happily admit I was incorrect. But it must show that “toeing the line” is 100% and completely incorrect.

      Surely you can provide even that small amount of proof? I mean, it’s so easy what with there being so many online dictionaries and whatnot. It should be as simple as typing in “toeing the line” into your search engine of choice and copy/pasting the first link which shows up.

      I await your proof, John.

      Geoff

  10. No boy, I DID correct you, you are simply to stupid to understand the education. I still await you making an intelligent point, nothing so far πŸ˜‰

    Run along now now boy you are really starting to look as big a cock as James πŸ˜‰

    No further comment required.

    • In other words John, you’ve realised your mistake and that I was right and you were wrong.

      Otherwise, it would be just such a simple matter to copy/paste a link to any online dictionary.

      So come on John, I’m waiting…

  11. Please try n keep up Barnes you poor dumb cunt πŸ˜‰

    Once again…

    No boy, I DID correct you, you are simply to stupid to understand the education. I still await you making an intelligent point, nothing so far πŸ˜‰

    Run along now now boy you are really starting to look as big a cock as James πŸ˜‰

    No further comment required.

    Get someone to explain that to you πŸ˜‰

  12. Once again my boy πŸ˜‰

    Please try n keep up Barnes you poor dumb cunt πŸ˜‰

    Once again…

    No boy, I DID correct you, you are simply to stupid to understand the education. I still await you making an intelligent point, nothing so far πŸ˜‰

    Run along now now boy you are really starting to look as big a cock as James πŸ˜‰

    No further comment required.

    Get someone to explain that to you πŸ˜‰

    • Excellent, John. Thank you. You’ve just proven the only thing you can do is copy/paste your own previous comments, rather than actually posting any evidence to back up your claims.

      That truly is the last resort of the defeated, hoping that repetition of prior inaccuracies and lies will in some way make up for the lack of evidence.

  13. Nothing more required when dealing with fuckwit’s such as you Barnes πŸ˜‰

    Once again my boy πŸ˜‰

    Please try n keep up Barnes you poor dumb cunt πŸ˜‰

    Once again…

    No boy, I DID correct you, you are simply to stupid to understand the education. I still await you making an intelligent point, nothing so far πŸ˜‰

    Run along now now boy you are really starting to look as big a cock as James πŸ˜‰

    No further comment required.

    Get someone to explain that to you πŸ˜‰

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s