NailseaRed Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Anyone know why the jarred on a wednesday night thread got closed?! Is there too much censorship on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 possibly, although i didnt see any names mentioned! If we lose, then we all know what we are going to blame - the amber nectar? Or possibly our lack of defending set pieces, Tony Butler or that we cant score enough goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 actually its still open for me! ooohhhh i just gotta email from BCFC - have they spotted me? can i slot into the 4-4-2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 nbope "do i want a season ticket?" ho hum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I've no idea but do you agree with my team for Brighton: Phillips Carey Coles Butler Hill #### Wilkshire Doherty Bell ####### Roberts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 id personally like to ###### up front allowing ###### to come up in the wing back role?? but hey they are all ###### Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezey Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Is it just me or is this censorship thing going a bit far ? I can understand the Ron Atkinson stuff and things like that being removed as the club could get in trouble but to censor players names and close posts about players drinking in town is a bit OTT. If the club dont like posts like that may I suggest they speak to the players involved? At this stage of the season with everything resting on the next three games you would have to be a bit daft to get spotted drinking. Come on mods lets not go OTT on the censorship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderEagle Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Its still there - look. I'll post on it to bmp it up to the top again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Snufflelufagus Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Sorry I started the Ron Atkinson thread but all I asked was what he said. It was a fact he said it (he resigned over it) so what the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br 1st ol Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I have to agree...not good to close this topic.... Especilally as all posts were careful not to reveal the names involved. One can only assume that if the club feel that strongly they will talk to the players. On the censorship issue, if a subject is CLOSED, should the mods not explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderEagle Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 OH no, my mistake, it is "closed" but not removed from the forum! Thats a new one on me, I mean, if you're going to remove it (which I don't agree with) then remove it. As it is, we can all still read what was said anyway. I'd love to know the thinking behind this - TOMF? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 It reminds a bit like bullying at school Instead of taking the bully out of the classroom that they terrorising Its a case of lets talk to those who are being bullied Take the bully away and the classroom can return to a peacefull state rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Especilally as all posts were careful not to reveal the names involved. Not true. I've only just stumbled across the post this morning (now afternoon) and I've seen seven names of first team players. You won't find them there anymore, but they were there. On the censorship issue, if a subject is CLOSED, should the mods not explain why? Try clicking here. Cheers, Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br 1st ol Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Fair point AdamB...thanks for the reply.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 id personally like to ###### up front allowing ###### to come up in the wing back role?? Yeah, I see what you mean but you know Wilson is always going to pick #######. but hey they are all ###### That's a bit strong. ## maybe but not ######. Edit reason: got ##### confused with #######. Apologies to #####. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Correct decision? - Most certainly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I can live with censorship when posts are obviously of a sexist or racist nature or where obscene language is used but I get really peeved when like me recently, you can get banned for five days for holding an alternative view to the majority and the thought police who run the forum - ah yes, forum, where one can air an exchange of views, except when you don't agree with the majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I can live with censorship when posts are obviously of a sexist or racist nature or where obscene language is used but I get really peeved when like me recently, you can get banned for five days for holding an alternative view to the majority and the thought police who run the forum - ah yes, forum, where one can air an exchange of views, except when you don't agree with the majority What were you banned for? Presumably you were given an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 As I said, for disagreeing with the majority but that is done and dusted, I've served my term so life goes on - now I know how Red Goblin feels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fct Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Well England you can bask in the knowledge your street credibility went up by being banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 As I said, for disagreeing with the majority but that is done and dusted, I've served my term so life goes on - now I know how Red Goblin feels. And that was the reason you were given? I find that very hard to believe. I'm not sure I wanted to know that you spent your time off getting to know Red Goblin more intimately, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I really don't care if you cannot believe the truth edson but I do resent your homophobic suggestions and I think the thought police should ban you for the rest of the season :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 I really don't care if you cannot believe the truth edson but I do resent your homophobic suggestions and I think the thought police should ban you for the rest of the season :@ Where have I been homophobic? If it's the truth that you were given an explanation by the moderators, that your ban was for "disagreeing with the majority", then I think you were very harshly treated. Forgive me if my gut instinct is to suspect that is bullmanure, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 You will just have to accept the premise that for once in your life, in regard to my ban,you are wrong - I will not join you in the gutter to explain your accusation in respect of your vile suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 You will just have to accept the premise that for once in your life, in regard to my ban,you are wrong - I will not join you in the gutter to explain your accusation in respect of your vile suggestion. Ok, you won't expand, so I'll ask the moderators directly. Fair enough, but it might be less embarrassing if you just stopped the bluff now. And you used the word 'homophobic' incorrectly, but again, you're trying to bluff your way through it by not answering the question (I sense a theme developing). If you want to join me in the gutter some time, I'll explain the correct usage to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bootylicious Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 Crikey moses!! What a load of tosh! All the guys were saying was that they saw a certain player (s) down town, drinking! Why all the fuss? Its not libellious or anything! My post got removed and i didnt even mention names. Christ, next we wont even be able to discuss which players should start a forthcoming match, in fear that it may influence DW's final decision. Freedom of speech and all that! :@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
England Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 An interesting dilemma edson - if I repeat my contention then I may be banned again but if the forum organisers tell you what I said that was removed from public appraisal they may be questioned regarding Data Protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted April 22, 2004 Admin Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 An interesting dilemma edson - if I repeat my contention then I may be banned again but if the forum organisers tell you what I said that was removed from public appraisal they may be questioned regarding Data Protection why would confirming why someone was banned contravene the Data Protection act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 An interesting dilemma edson - if I repeat my contention then I may be banned again but if the forum organisers tell you what I said that was removed from public appraisal they may be questioned regarding Data Protection What a convenient out. Not only do you not know the correct usage of the word 'homophobe', you also seem a bit confused about Data Protection. Giving a reason as to why someone is banned from a forum is not a Data Protection issue. Clutching at straws because you have something to hide, by any chance? All you have to do is copy and paste the reason given to you for your ban, not repeat your contention. If it says "for disagreeing with the majority", then I'll believe you, once admin. have verified it. Couldn't be easier, could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 As I said, for disagreeing with the majority but that is done and dusted, I've served my term so life goes on - now I know how Red Goblin feels. Fair comment England, try writing C r o m w e l l or s u b j u g a t e d or I love you, you do know that, don't you? without the spaces and see what happens :@ The BCFC forum Gestapo are having a laugh at our expense. Off with their heads Up the City and may the BCFC forum Gestapo be laid low with a dose of the plague Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.