Suggestions

I didn't think you were Ann but you were being ever so subtle so I couldn't be sure lol.

Thank you for clarifying x

Lol! Me subtle that's a new one!

Looks as though this post has unsettled some people and are making them start to think who they person/people involved are.

I hope GR sort it out or give a response in some way!

:-)

Lol Ann

there must be a first....whatever did you say? lol

Jonesey -- "Sounds to me just about as sensible as giving an alcoholic the key to the bar."

and in some cases I think the two sets are identical, hereabouts. :-)

Well people are watching because I have had an e mail not via Genes which accused me of accusing this person, which I wasn't, I was not actually accusing anyone but rather all those who used to flit in and out causing trouble. Of those who were banned, including those who in most people's opinion should not have been I didn't have a clue who had actually been the cause because there were so many causing mischief. And most of the time I'd be on holiday and come back and find people gone. (sob).

susan my post was just a reference to the fact I didn't think free members should be able to post because of the possibility of mischief making for bored minds.

And to the person who e mailed me it is not always all about you. I didn't even give you a thought.

There have been orchestrated campaigns to get people banned for as long as I've been a member. I'm delighted that GR are finally looking at this and hope action is taken against the habitual RRs.

Ann, congratulations on your first deletion!

I love your final sentence. I am tempted to post that often.

Gwynne

Love your sheep Gwynne :-)

:-) She thanks you!

Gwynne

Gwynne :-) :-) :-)

Thank you GR for re-instating my post.

i am so glad your post was reinstated Ann
it left me wondering what you could of said to have it RR
and now i have seen it you didnt say anything to warrent it

maybe it hit a note with somebody x

Joy :-) Yep!

Glad you had your post reinstated but the question is did GR advise why it had been removed?

I kind of think when they do these things it would be good if they followed through with a bet better customer service. After all say you had posted something incorrectly, unless it was explained you wouldn't know you were doing something wrong.

Or maybe I am being a bit silly. I really like this site but I don't think their customer service is all that up to par compared to someother sites.

Since this new system of reporting I have not had any emails from GR if someone has reported my posts.

I have had the standard "Thank you for bringing it to our attention" if I have reported anything

jax

I had a response advising that I should expect mild swearing etc from an over 18s site. I asked if there had been an announcement that the age had changed from 16 to 18; no, it was still over 16 came the reply with an apology for the incorrect statement.

See what I mean, it seems to be hit and miss, no consistency

I had an e mail but probably only because I contacted them about the RR and told them roughly what was in the post.

I had the standard, it would be reviewed and reinstated if found not to contravene T&Cs. But I had nothing to say it had been re-instated, just had to keep checking for 3 days.

I think a simple - your post has been reinstated, or an explanation why not would help us know what is acceptable and what isn't.

You have to keep emailing them, AnninGlos. ;-)

When I have, about the malicious reporting, I've got back the reply that there was nothing in the post that violated anything and assurances that the problem is being monitored.

Another one today!

http://www.genesreunited.co.nz/boards.page/board/general_chat/thread/1271135?page=1

I gather I can't say what I *really* think and everybody knows about the person in question, because of English libel laws -- although I don't think that's actually so. I do recall that old "tired and emotional" saw, though.

But if I want to give my opinion about a public figure's figure that is, well, an extremely bad model for little girls, I'm gonna say it. "Lovely" is not how I describe someone so stick-thin they disappear if they turn sideways.

As I was the one who described the Duchess of Cambridge as looking 'lovely' at yesterday's Trooping of the Colour ceremony, I feel I must re-iterate that I was not the one who requested a review of Janey's comments.


I have great admiration for Janey as a researcher but, I just don't agree with her on certain subjects. If I were to be truly and woefully upset by her comments, I would send her a pm (much as she hates them) rather than lower my standards and have a slanging match in full view of everyone.


It would have to be in very extreme circumstances that I would request a review of anyone's post and, even then, I would tell them why I had done such a thing.


Cx

:-D