Pet Terry did not post without spite, he posted threads he knew would annoy, he is salacious rather that subversive. You say you don't know the real Terry I really don't want to , his behaviour in the warm and tranquil room last year was nothing short of malicious.
Ultimately this is an on line community. It is moderated, no one is bullying, if Terry had not skated to far to the rules he would not have had this thread formed.

I am sorry you are unhappy over it but it is a community and as such members are free to be annoyed by disruptive behaviour, and ask for it to be dealt with. I think this is a creative and happy solution thank you mods.
L
Holding a banner up for him as you feel he has been treated unfairly make me visualise him gleefully laughing at you. He never was an innocent, always a stirrer and I am sure he is absolutely delighted to receive attention.

The business over hive mind has defeated me, primer, is your point those who have applauded this are brainwashed into thinking Terry was irritating, I suspect that conclusion was reached independently by multiple FM within a few days or weeks of forum use. Just because a lot of people think the same thing does not make it wrong.
I don't think anyone has said the is not a form of Internet troll. Why then feed him,and give him the opertunity to continue his trolling?

Gosh i notice Some are still obsessed with moaning negatively about a member you have practically driven off this section of the board anyway. You have won and now he probably wont post much anymore.

This is unprecedented.

To be effectively talking about a poster behind his back for more than a week is plain wrong- whatever you thought of him.

Even though he isn't 'inactive' I assume he was told not to post on SCD threads again- but those who are 'in the right' (very much a matter of opinion anyway) are going onandonandonandonandon, and obviously don't want to let the matter drop.

Try being magnanimous in victory, and let it drop.

The first one I'll sort of concede but how would "his eejit behaviour" sit with you? OK? He's clearly not stupid but his behaviour most certainly was. That was disruptive and such he can't have any complaints about the action the Mods took.

As for my others I can only assume you don't really get (a) facts or (b) humour. That's just an observation rather than a criticism btw

This behaviour sounds like that of a school playground.

Really amazed that people could not ignore Terry's threads despite the long titles and CAPITALS. Why go in if Terry is annoying? If the first page is half full with Terry - there is page 2 and 3. Simple. Most of the threads replacing Terry are rubbish ranting about somebody so sweet who wuz robbed.

Terry was never provocative, rude, personal or pompous in other threads. Never showed signs of being embittered. Always polite.

And now those that have driven him away keep coming on to "his" thread.

Very strange indeed.


Ah but the object of complaining wasn't because of Terry's comments or threads. Some people obviously like a rant.

They were not seeking "victory". They were looking to get Terry into trouble with the "beak". And now the sadoes have to scour the forum to pick on somebody else.

Quite amusing really.

I tried on many occasions to enter into his "discussions", but it was like trying to knit fog. Every post was answered with something deliberately "misunderstood", mis-spelled or an innuendo or a double entendre. He was most definitely deliberately provocative, intending to wind people up.

Very tedious when you are trying to actually have a discussion.

I did not complain about him to the mods, but think they have taken the right action. An internet forum is not a personal and childish playground for one person.

Some support this moderation decision and some don't. But is there really anything new or constructive to be said? This thread is at the stage where it is just individual members with opposing views sniping at each other. That never ends well.

Surely it is time to accept the moderation as it stands or, if you feel a great wrong (or right !) has been committed, simply contact the moderation team.

I am curious as to why you entered his threads. It was pretty obvious that his threads were a wind-up.

Terry was a real prat - or at least behaved like one. And it was obvious. But he wasn't vindictive or malicious in his threads or elsewhere.

Some say they have been annoyed by him for years. Why did they go into his threads?

I am perplexed by this odd behaviour. Some strange need being demonstrated.

Because I felt the need to reply to some of the things he said, such as female dancers deliberately flashing their crotches at the camera. That wasn't provocative? It was demeaning to the female dancers and needed to be corrected. Didn't work though.

Hmm... Like a lot of Terry's opinions, I think this was an inflated version of a view expressed elsewhere on the forum. He held up a mirror to a lot of folk who no doubt did not like it.

People have expressed surprise that he posted more normally on other boards, as if this is an additional charge to lay against him. But it's more likely, given this is the exception, that his style here is a response to the environment. Maybe 'we' as a whole get the Terry we deserve. I guess we can all agree there are no fewer crappy threads to read now he's not posting them

The significant issue, to my mind, is that intolerance has been given the green flag. Terry could never stop me from reading the forum but this could.

Have done, thanks.

I agree. Personally I was mostly amused by the sly mischief, deadpan innuendo and bland provocation of Terry's threads. His absurd preoccupations - the Blessed Anne Widdicombe, Lulu and 'Brenden' etc. - struck me as a kind of parodic response to the rancorous obsessions of other posters. The disappearance of his threads has eclipsed the gaiety of the forum.

I decided sometime last week that Terry was a genius.

He managed to upset some with his blandness, some with his opinions, some with his carefully placed mangling of English spelling, some with his use of upper case, some with the sheer mundaneness of his contributions.

I think TerryM22 is either Monkseal's alter ego or a PhD student researching internet forum reactions for his social psychology thesis.

And - even more genius - now he's gone (temporarily I expect) - people sort of seem to miss him. Now who would have expected that?

Terry - I salute you.

I can tell you that Terry is as human as the rest of us. and feels the criticism keenly. We exchanged PMs last year when Mimidic started a thread against his posts, which is how I know. He does feel unable to post in the midst of all the criticism. But you can be sure, he is aware of it.

Uncomfortably, it's your unfortunate opinion.
Then you assume wrongly.

I have rolled my eyes over this for long enough. Terry's threads certainly provoked plenty of reaction and responses - then the posters complain. Just laughable.

Yep - someone needs to have a word with Kristina!

Did you put your head on the wrong way round this morning?

Are you really suggesting that Terry's other chosen habitats - Big Brother, I'm A Celeb and the Football forum - are havens of peace, tranquillity and tolerance? Have you ever been on the BB forum and do have any idea just how rabidly partisan football supporters are? This place is like a gentle stroll in the park by comparison.


The BIB perhaps explains why of the 215 threads he has started in his forum life, 181 have been on this forum. He has not posted on the BB forum for nearly 2 years - only ever starting 12 threads there - and of the 4 threads he started on the Football forum, 3 were locked. His thread style and posting style are exactly the same in other forums as they are here.

I'm sorry Pet, but to suggest that it's the febrile hostility of the Strictly forum that he feeds off is risible nonsense. He set up base camp here because believe it or not, it is - or certainly has been - one of the 'nicest' boards on the DS forums. That's why it stayed pink for so long. Terry has been tolerated far longer here than he would have - or has been - anywhere else and less readily identified and branded as a troll.People here are nice - well, except for me and the other Terry naysayers, of course.

I would have had no problem with Tezza were it not for the spamming and bumping old threads. I sat in a tailback on the M25 last week trying to look at this forum on my phone for a bit of light relief but just gave up in disgust - the front page was full of his sh1te threads.

By your own admission Terry has trolled these boards - you just happen to find him a nice troll. Others don't. We should be allowed our disapprobation without being branded 'bullies'.

But it IS bullying! To constantly go on AT a poster is undermining them. The forum rule is to attack the post - not the poster.

Definition of "Troll"

In internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the internet by starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

How then can a troll be "nice"?

If it is indeed the case that his posts are genuine, then I would be sorry that I started one of the threads a couple of weeks ago that may have precipitated the Mods action.

But I feel very much the same as Janet43 regarding his posts:-



I had learnt not to go into his threads at all, but he did tend to dominate the front page, which I found irritating, so I asked for the 'Ignore' function to include whole thread ignore.

On balance, I now wish I had not posted that request - the irritation certainly wasn't worth causing someone significant upset.

OK, the posts made by someone with a username TerryM22 were consciously disruptive, bouncing threads, provocative and bordering on spam. But I'm sure he's a diamond geezer really


I also agree with Janet43's comments

we have a forum full of people tearing celebs and pros to pieces, criticising their appearance, their looks, their stature, their size, their faces, their expressions, their words, deeds and dancing, in the most unpleasant and ridiculously over the top way... people telling other posters what they can and can't comment on and attempting to pull rank on each other (be that by age, forum experience, real dance experience, imaginary dance experience, etc etc ad nauseam)....

and people are bothered by a bit of terry alliteration, innuendo, capitals and poor spelling?

Which, in essence, is what many did in the thread that precipitated the mods creating this one.

If you read what has been said, the vast majority of people - myself included - have complained about the spamming and bumping of threads which was designed to cause a logjam on the front page. In some instances, FMs also complained about the increasingly salacious nature of some of his posts. That also included me.

They were not complaints aimed at Terry as an individual, but at his posts and threads and behaviour which contravened T&Cs.

Oh I couldn't be bothered. Life's too short.

good. now just ask yourself ... what would steve do...

i think you know the answer.

He didn't break any rules. "Terry hasn't broken any rules - it's a forum and if you don't like what's being discussed, it isn't hard to ignore a thread", or words to that effect were used by the mods. They told us that twice... before giving into the mob.


What has joining dates got to do with anything? I discovered Digital Spy back in 2008/2009. Can't remember if I found this forum at the end of The X Factor 2008 or during Big Brother 2009, but I was definitely here to see Sophie win Big Brother in 2009 - that's five years. I wasn't particularly interested in taking part in any discussions so had no reason to join (and I'm sure it was a £5 charge or something), I just liked to check how my favourites were going down with the public on these shows.

I really don't see the problem - like I said somewhere else in this thread, I manage to use the soap forum very easily, despite the fact I only watch Emmerdale.
If you don't watch the soaps or visit that forum, go over there now and see how many Emmerdale threads are on page 1/2/3. You'll find it's very, very little. Yet, it really isn't that difficult for me to avoid/ignore any other soap thread, and I don't see why this is any different.

Just because YOU aren't interested in reading certain threads, doesn't/shouldn't mean they all get merged. Or can I go over to the soap forum and kick up a fuss? They better bloody merge all those EastEnders threads since they're no interest to me! All they do is clog up the first page and I can't discuss Emmerdale. It's not fair Maybe if I get enough Emmerdale and Corrie fans to moan about it, I can make it happen? That's how the mods work now, isn't it?

People are just being awkward... if it really is as much as a problem to avoid certain threads as much as some make out, then I despair - what are they even doing on a computer?

Don't get all preachy with me.