Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

paid membership - would you?


Guest eFestivals

would you pay a small monthly fee to support efests & get extras?  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. would you pay a small monthly fee to support efests & get extras?

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      37


Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Only problem with Paypal subs is that eFestivals would need to pay to receive those transactions am sure.. Though no idea if other methods would not incure some costs either.

there's a small fee with PayPal transactions, but it's one I'm happy enough to carry - any other way of taking payments has a cost too, and just about all other options also have other overheads at my end (which PayPal doesn't), stuff such as ensuring that all of the security aspects are always up-to-date.

PayPal is my preferred method of taking payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

if it was paypal only, i'd be out. i refuse to use it anymore.

can I ask why?

It used to do all sorts of tricks to try and get people to properly sign up for a PayPal account, but as far as I'm aware they stopped doing those years ago, and nowadays it's an easier way to pay than credit card if you have a PayPal account and no more hassle for those who don't have a PayPal account to do a credit card payment thru it than credit card payments made elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can I ask why?

It used to do all sorts of tricks to try and get people to properly sign up for a PayPal account, but as far as I'm aware they stopped doing those years ago, and nowadays it's an easier way to pay than credit card if you have a PayPal account and no more hassle for those who don't have a PayPal account to do a credit card payment thru it than credit card payments made elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

just cos i had a dispute that they did naff all about when i was ripped off, but when i genuinely had to wait to pay a guy i had to refund, they shut down my account. plus when i had to provide them with id when i had reached a certain limit, it was a ball ache to have done. and also my brother has had his hacked twice and had money taken off him so that just seals the deal for me not going back.

it's a shame cos it means i'm limited with what sellers i can buy from on ebay.

You don't have to have a PayPal account to make payments into a trader's PayPal account - so little of what you say there is relevant.

As for your bruv getting hacked, that's very likely down to the quality of the password he used and nothing else. Always avoid dictionary words for any password!

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

den, the numbers won't dwindle. least they won't as a direct result of this. me paying and you not doesn't alter anything that you have just now for free. you will be getting the same service. i will just recieve a few perks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to have a PayPal account to make payments into a trader's PayPal account - so little of what you say there is relevant.

As for your bruv getting hacked, that's very likely down to the quality of the password he used and nothing else. Always avoid dictionary words for any password!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

but I still think £3 for what is proposed so far is untenable..and so does the vast majority of others.

if you were thinking that I was thinking that the vast majority - or even ta majority - of the people who use these forums would go for this option you'd be very very wrong indeed. ;)

I`ve had a lok at what I`ve said and theres nothing outlandish.. its reasoned comment...

I'd have thought that reasoned comments would be working from the stated facts rather than inventing scenarios contrary to those facts, but I guess that just gets to show that we have different ideas about what is reasoned and what isn't. :lol:

One thing I do know though is.. your customer service skills are very very poor and as is--for what you are doing here--they dony need to be any good...cos you can, and do just tell people to f**k off sort of.

if you think I'm working to the standard version of what is regarded as customer service you'd be very very wrong. I don't work to that standard version because the whole premise behind it is 100% wrong.

The customer is not always right. You and some of your comments here are a living proof of that. :)

I have no fear of stating the simple truth, and never will do.

Your abilities to deal with paying customers would be questionable to say the least.

There's no issues with the right kinds of customers, as thousands of satisfied customers get to show. :)

I'm quite happy to let others have the wrong kinds of customers and all the wonderful traits they bring with them. I'm smart enough to realise that I can't please all of the people all of the time, so don't bother putting out the blatant bullshit that would be required if I was trying.

You might prefer a false smile and 'have a nice day', but some of us can handle the truth and much prefer to be told to f**k off if that's what the person is meaning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

User Number 1? Efestivals. It's a unique reference number I'm guessing sequentially generated created on the date you joined as part of the create new user process.

I myself am 2175. There was a period of time when I called everyone by their number. It was meant to be an knowing wink to the Prisoner.

Edited by jump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I've been thinking about this, and I'm reconciling it like this. I use this site a lot, and if I went out on the piss with Neil once a month I'd probably buy him a pint to say thanks for the site.

Wouldn't you?

Nicely put. :)

Another way of looking at it is that £3 is around the price of many monthly magazines, and for many of the regulars they get a damned sight more entertainment and use out of here than they would one of those mags.

It doesn't always have to be looked at purely in the way some are, on a "what extra do I get out of it" basis. Some people are able to recognise the extra they're getting out of it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People say they wouldnt use some of the benefits on offer, perhaps thats true but its vital for this model to work. Folk like to get something in return for something else, even if it is a very small, insignificant item. Its why charities send out pens and stuff when asking for donations.

I think its a really good idea, now I understand the mechanics of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive just voted no which is actually really a 'maybe'

I could be persuaded but to be honest I'm rarely on here anymore. Facebook has taken over the job that I used to rely on this site for so now its just the discussion area.

It would seem a bit daft to pay 3 quid a month to read posts which most of the time just annoy me and get my back up....

Then a again I pay £3 a month to have access to Middlesbrough football matches on t'internet so maybe I would....

The answer is a resounding 'I dunno' :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you were thinking that I was thinking that the vast majority - or even ta majority - of the people who use these forums would go for this option you'd be very very wrong indeed. ;)

I'd have thought that reasoned comments would be working from the stated facts rather than inventing scenarios contrary to those facts, but I guess that just gets to show that we have different ideas about what is reasoned and what isn't. :lol:

if you think I'm working to the standard version of what is regarded as customer service you'd be very very wrong. I don't work to that standard version because the whole premise behind it is 100% wrong.

The customer is not always right. You and some of your comments here are a living proof of that. :)

I have no fear of stating the simple truth, and never will do.

There's no issues with the right kinds of customers, as thousands of satisfied customers get to show. :)

I'm quite happy to let others have the wrong kinds of customers and all the wonderful traits they bring with them. I'm smart enough to realise that I can't please all of the people all of the time, so don't bother putting out the blatant bullshit that would be required if I was trying.

You might prefer a false smile and 'have a nice day', but some of us can handle the truth and much prefer to be told to f**k off if that's what the person is meaning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hope it's me if it saves me from some weird ritual with your dug!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, dug! this is a dug. ken?

ancol-tartan-dog-coat-3915-2397_medium.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...