Why do we have to login for Brit Forum?

[Final round]

I am pretty sure the login started when a certain well known UK promotor tried to engage the mods of this forum with a game of laywerball. Playing a game of laywerball with any well known UK promotor is not recommended, and as such, steps were taken to regulate strong opinion and traffic.

I think I am right anyway.

Thank you!

Alarm bells must ring on mods pc's across the land when certain I.p addresses login to read .

[Asterix]

It's totally annoying and I have never known anything like it.


If you click remember log in then it should remember, but it doesn't on here for some reason.

It does for me. Always has done.

Same here.

[Final round]

Poncey's explained, but think about this: other forums don't have mandatory log ins and are complete and utter shitholes, this one does and isn't.

You can't post unless you log in are you suggesting the freedom to read anonymously lowers standards of Internet sites?

I can read the General forum, other topics etc but to peruse the extremely sensitive material in The British section , well you must present yourself.

Anyway I see now it's all to prevent allegedly and his minions sniffing around undetected.

Which is fair enough really.

[palooka]

Poncey's explained, but think about this: other forums don't have mandatory log ins and are complete and utter shitholes, this one does and isn't.

I really enjoy the Brit forum and only occasionaly look at the current scene - I have to say that there are more silly posts and deliberate argument fostering than British and Irish; think that we're well behaved.

[rhino222]

F R A N K W A R R E N I T I S ...... the site runs in fear of his lawyers, therefore the site minimises the chances of unwelcome anonymous visitors!!

simples!!

[m1kee50]

Isnt that what BoxingGnat is for?

[ra2006]

In all fairness, I vaguely remember the post which caused the game of laywerball with this well known UK promotor. It was in regards to a certain fight card, and the poster alledged that this UK promotor paid off a boxer to back out of a fight against one of his boxers as this poster alluded that the promotors boxer might have lost!!

Now, lets break this down. I am sure if the poster has said something along the lines of the possible result of the original fight line up would have been this, then that would have been fine, but he alledged that specific underhanded activities went on behind the scenes as he had heard it from a mate closely connected to this UK promoter. Now that is wrong if you do not have the evidence to back it up.

In my view it was a stupid post from this person and ill judged. Regardless of my opinion of this well known UK promotor, if I was him I would have been pretty p*5sed off about it aswell, and would want to protect my reputation from such malicous statements like that which are viewed on a public forum.

By saying that, we should all on Boxrec speak freely, voice opinion and get involved in debate over this great sport. I am certain the Bunnies, Maloneys and Hearns all view this board to gauge public opinion. but we must also exercise some responsibilty with our opinions, regardless of how strong our views are.


Anyway, happened a long time ago and I agree that this is a much better forum then it's rivals, less trolls, less d1ckheads, and some really interesting and knowledgable posters who contribute here!!


Ps: I am not Bunny or Hearn or Maloney!!

[dondada]

In all fairness, I vaguely remember the post which caused the game of laywerball with this well known UK promotor. It was in regards to a certain fight card, and the poster alledged that this UK promotor paid off a boxer to back out of a fight against one of his boxers as this poster alluded that the promotors boxer might have lost!!

Now, lets break this down. I am sure if the poster has said something along the lines of the possible result of the original fight line up would have been this, then that would have been fine, but he alledged that specific underhanded activities went on behind the scenes as he had heard it from a mate closely connected to this UK promoter. Now that is wrong if you do not have the evidence to back it up.

In my view it was a stupid post from this person and ill judged. Regardless of my opinion of this well known UK promotor, if I was him I would have been pretty p*5sed off about it aswell, and would want to protect my reputation from such malicous statements like that which are viewed on a public forum.

By saying that, we should all on Boxrec speak freely, voice opinion and get involved in debate over this great sport. I am certain the Bunnies, Maloneys and Hearns all view this board to gauge public opinion. but we must also exercise some responsibilty with our opinions, regardless of how strong our views are.


Anyway, happened a long time ago and I agree that this is a much better forum then it's rivals, less trolls, less d1ckheads, and some really interesting and knowledgable posters who contribute here!!


Ps: I am not Bunny or Hearn or Maloney!!

Good post. I MUST stress re the bit in bold...of course, it's important to be able to prove what you say but even if you can, it might cost you a fortune to have your day in court to do so.

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

You will have to wait for my book "Spud and British Boxing Forum Wars of 2001-2007"

Ive just got up to 2005 and am writing a chapter on the transition from sweetscience to doghouse. Its a fascinating story of greed, corruption, duplicity, betrayal, sexual deviance and public indecency.

[ra2006]

You will have to wait for my book "Spud and British Boxing Forum Wars of 2001-2007"

Ive just got up to 2005 and am writing a chapter on the transition from sweetscience to doghouse. Its a fascinating story of greed, corruption, duplicity, betrayal, sexual deviance and public indecency.

I can help with 2006!!!

[Chambers2]

I think..... if you have to log into it it's a members forum and as thus not open to public viewing, guessing that has some legal ramifications

[Chambers2]

You will have to wait for my book "Spud and British Boxing Forum Wars of 2001-2007"

Ive just got up to 2005 and am writing a chapter on the transition from sweetscience to doghouse. Its a fascinating story of greed, corruption, duplicity, betrayal, sexual deviance and public indecency.

The transition from Doghouse to ....BoxingTalk(??) would be a good read, plenty of cyberblood spilt in that one

[Khaosai-Galaxy]

You will have to wait for my book "Spud and British Boxing Forum Wars of 2001-2007"

Ive just got up to 2005 and am writing a chapter on the transition from sweetscience to doghouse. Its a fascinating story of greed, corruption, duplicity, betrayal, sexual deviance and public indecency.

The transition from Doghouse to ....BoxingTalk(??) would be a good read, plenty of cyberblood spilt in that one

Oh yes, that was a messy afair indeed, ill never forget where i was when i got the private message that we were no longer welcome at doghouse. (I was sat in front of my computer)

[Teddy's Toupee]

At the bottom of the thread page it tells you who is online. It gives the user name of who is logged in, but at the time of me posting this comment there were also 5 guests , so some people can still view this forum without signing in. I used to be able to look at the forum as a guest if I didn't want to post any comments but for about a month I've had to sign in. It can't be for the "legal" reasons other posters have mentioned because clearly anonymous "guests" can still have a look at the forum.

[keithmoonhangover]

If Mr Warren is the problem, why don't we make him an offer he can't refuse?

[jameswilson]

If Mr Warren is the problem, why don't we make him an offer he can't refuse?

I did. I even have the emails I sent to prove it. My first thoughts when he turned the offer down were 'what an ingrate.'

PS For legal reasons I have to say I don't really.

[Final round]

At the bottom of the thread page it tells you who is online. It gives the user name of who is logged in, but at the time of me posting this comment there were also 5 guests , so some people can still view this forum without signing in. I used to be able to look at the forum as a guest if I didn't want to post any comments but for about a month I've had to sign in. It can't be for the "legal" reasons other posters have mentioned because clearly anonymous "guests" can still have a look at the forum.

If you tick the "Hide my online status this session" you will appear as a guest but not to the mods.