Racism.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed, I regularly see you shouting down anybody that does not agree with you.

Basically, what your above post is saying, is that only your opinion is correct and should not be challenged, and everyone else's posts should be moderated accordingly. 

Doesn't say anything of the sort. It states, whether you agree with it or not, that the poster believes there is an imbalance in terms of moderation, a bias if you like. The rest of it you've made up so that you can have a pop and a pretty transparent effort at that. 

Before I get the standard 'white-knighting' piffle levelled at me, let me state categorically that I agree with the poster's assessment. By way of recent example, there was a series of what were potentially defamatory posts (statements already subject to legal action) on this thread, propagating a series of claims that the Syrian lad was involved in bullying other children himself, notably an attack on a young English girl. The poster also claimed there was no reporting of the boys behaviour because of an apparent media conspiracy to bury the story. These claims were left up on the thread all day and then overnight until I posted 5 links (out of the dozens spat out by a single Google search) to media reports that had been online for up to 7 days and that showed that the source of the claims, Tommy Robinson, had been duped. One also included a statement from West Yorkshire police saying that the claimed reports and video of the boy attacking the young girl simply don't exist. It might have been a boring post, but it certainly wasn't rude or inflammatory, yet it was taken down within minutes of posting, as no doubt will this be. The reason I was given when I enquired why, was that I had strayed off topic, which I glibly accepted with a polite 'thank you' and went on with my day. There was no point in arguing the toss as clearly my response to the original posts was considered worthier of moderation than the posts they responded to. With all due respect, I can’t see how. 

And that, good sir, is why a good few folk (not just Lambchop) feel that some aspects of the moderation of the site need looking at. This said, with a politics ban in place, there is arguably less need to labour the point.  It's also worth mentioning that what has proven a highly divisive and inflammatory topic in the past, has, by and large, been discussed in a pretty grown up and civilised manner, despite folk having widely disparate views, so perhaps some lessons have been learnt.

[David]

3 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Doesn't say anything of the sort. It states, whether you agree with it or not, that the poster believes there is an imbalance in terms of moderation, a bias if you like. The rest of it you've made up so that you can have a pop and a pretty transparent effort at that. 

Before I get the standard 'white-knighting' piffle levelled at me, let me state categorically that I agree with the poster's assessment. By way of recent example, there was a series of what were potentially defamatory posts (statements already subject to legal action) on this thread, propagating a series of claims that the Syrian lad was involved in bullying other children himself, notably an attack on a young English girl. The poster also claimed there was no reporting of the boys behaviour because of an apparent media conspiracy to bury the story. These claims were left up on the thread all day and then overnight until I posted 5 links (out of the dozens spat out by a single Google search) to media reports that had been online for up to 7 days and that showed that the source of the claims, Tommy Robinson, had been duped. One also included a statement from West Yorkshire police saying that the claimed reports and video of the boy attacking the young girl simply don't exist. It might have been a boring post, but it certainly wasn't rude or inflammatory, yet it was taken down within minutes of posting, as no doubt will this be. The reason I was given when I enquired why, was that I had strayed off topic, which I glibly accepted with a polite 'thank you' and went on with my day. There was no point in arguing the toss as clearly my response to the original posts was considered worthier of moderation than the posts they responded to. With all due respect, I can’t see how. 

And that, good sir, is why a good few folk (not just Lambchop) feel that some aspects of the moderation of the site need looking at. This said, with a politics ban in place, there is arguably less need to labour the point.  It's also worth mentioning that what has proven a highly divisive and inflammatory topic in the past, has, by and large, been discussed in a pretty grown up and civilised manner, despite folk having widely disparate views, so perhaps some lessons have been learnt.

Can I ask why did you not report these defamatory posts to alert moderators? 

Replying to posts rather than reporting is unhelpful as it can leave a quote trail running through the topic for the moderators to go through. 

With hundreds of posts on the forum each day it’s easy for posts to slip through the net which is why we ask members to report posts.

Reporting posts is completely anonymous and extremely helpful to us and the community in general.

[Comrade 86]

33 minutes ago, David said:

Can I ask why did you not report these defamatory posts to alert moderators? 

Replying to posts rather than reporting is unhelpful as it can leave a quote trail running through the topic for the moderators to go through. 

With hundreds of posts on the forum each day it’s easy for posts to slip through the net which is why we ask members to report posts.

Reporting posts is completely anonymous and extremely helpful to us and the community in general.

IT'S BEEN REQUESTED THAT THIS BE POSTED PUBLICLY - IT WAS ORIGINALLY SENT AS A PRIVATE MESSAGE.      You may indeed David and the answer is that on principle, I would not report any post bar the most extreme cases. For me, that's a very slippery slope. I suppose some posts would have to be reported but the claims made used to be very typical of this site and certain posters prior to the politics ban. A bending of truths, if you like. Also, if I'm totally honest, I have little faith in the moderation processes in this particular and narrow regard - that is not a general criticism but as stated in my post, topics such as these are not always best handled. I've also stated that the posts were 'potentially defamatory' in that investigations are still ongoing. What the posts in question most certainly were, is wilfully inaccurate and misleading. Smearing the character of a young boy who has not had a pleasant time of things speaks volumes to my mind, but perhaps I am being less than charitable myself. Moreover, were I to report every post that appeared troublesome to my way thinking, especially in days gone by, I'd be in your ear all day. I'm pretty sure that would not be welcome. I'm genuinely sorry if this seems unhelpful, as that is not my intention and I felt that by providing some balance to the posts in question, there was at least some form of mitigation. Again, I'm sorry if you feel that I'm being less than helpful and doubtless my comments will seem overly negative to you but as I have said before, this is by far the best fans forum I've come across and I'm not so blind as to be unable to see how thankless and complex the moderation process can be where these emotive types of topic are concerned. The benefits massively outweigh the negatives and I do actually believe that the forum is better for the ban, though I certainly didn't at the time. 

[rynny]

43 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Doesn't say anything of the sort. It states, whether you agree with it or not, that the poster believes there is an imbalance in terms of moderation, a bias if you like. The rest of it you've made up so that you can have a pop and a pretty transparent effort at that. 

Before I get the standard 'white-knighting' piffle levelled at me, let me state categorically that I agree with the poster's assessment. By way of recent example, there was a series of what were potentially defamatory posts (statements already subject to legal action) on this thread, propagating a series of claims that the Syrian lad was involved in bullying other children himself, notably an attack on a young English girl. The poster also claimed there was no reporting of the boys behaviour because of an apparent media conspiracy to bury the story. These claims were left up on the thread all day and then overnight until I posted 5 links (out of the dozens spat out by a single Google search) to media reports that had been online for up to 7 days and that showed that the source of the claims, Tommy Robinson, had been duped. One also included a statement from West Yorkshire police saying that the claimed reports and video of the boy attacking the young girl simply don't exist. It might have been a boring post, but it certainly wasn't rude or inflammatory, yet it was taken down within minutes of posting, as no doubt will this be. The reason I was given when I enquired why, was that I had strayed off topic, which I glibly accepted with a polite 'thank you' and went on with my day. There was no point in arguing the toss as clearly my response to the original posts was considered worthier of moderation than the posts they responded to. With all due respect, I can’t see how. 

And that, good sir, is why a good few folk (not just Lambchop) feel that some aspects of the moderation of the site need looking at. This said, with a politics ban in place, there is arguably less need to labour the point.  It's also worth mentioning that what has proven a highly divisive and inflammatory topic in the past, has, by and large, been discussed in a pretty grown up and civilised manner, despite folk having widely disparate views, so perhaps some lessons have been learnt.

I'm sorry but as the moderator that you asked that isn't what was said, is it? I told you the whole thread had a tidy up, the posts that were not on topic and taking us down a path we were against the forum rules.

I actually said that there was nothing wrong with your post, and if it was not for the new forum rules would still be visible. 

Your post was not taken down "within minutes", you posted at 7.15am and was hidden at 8.01am. And for the post you were replying to, it was posted at 5.36am on the same day.

I am really disappointed that you have not been true in what you have written, I certainly did not single your post as going off topic, and the fact that more than just your post has been removed is evidence of that. 

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, rynny said:

I'm sorry but as the moderator that you asked that isn't what was said, is it? I told you the whole thread had a tidy up, the posts that were not on topic and taking us down a path we were against the forum rules.

I actually said that there was nothing wrong with your post, and if it was not for the new forum rules would still be visible. 

Your post was not taken down "within minutes", you posted at 7.15am and was hidden at 8.01am. And for the post you were replying to, it was posted at 5.36am on the same day.

I am really disappointed that you have not been true in what you have written, I certainly did not single your post as going off topic, and the fact that more than just your post has been removed is evidence of that. 

It's not my intention to be disingenuous. If I am wrong about the timing of the posts in question then I apologise without reservation.  It is not my intention to mislead anyone. That notwithstanding, I stand by my comments about my lack of confidence in that I could offer any number of other past examples, as could others. I'm sorry if you feel I am being overly critical and my post was not in any way intended as a slur on you or anyone else for that matter, that was not my intention and whilst it was you that responded to my query, that doesn't mean I knew it was you that removed the post in any case. It's a shame that rather than addressing the general message of the post - a perceived bias - that this has now been made a personal issue due to me having mistaken the timings of the posts. I'm not sure why you've automatically assumed that I'm trying to mislead folk rather than simply having made a mistake. 

[David]

Appreciate you posting it @86 points, as you have raised concerns over moderation I would like the chance to address it publicly.

"I would not report any post bar the most extreme cases. For me, that's a very slippery slope."

Shortly after posting that some aspects of moderation need looking at is incredibly frustrating to read.

All social media platforms rely heavily on users to report posts, DCFC Fans is no different. Reporting is completely anonymous and just as essential to the running of any community as the server it runs on.

Hundreds of posts are made each day, it's impossible for moderators that give up their free time to not only read every single post but fact check what is being shared across other platforms and news outlets. 

As a member of this community you were aware of potentially defamatory posts on the forum, at this point you could have taken 30 seconds to report, leave a message to moderators and the posts would likely have been removed.

Instead you chose to go to Google, find links to disprove what had been posted creating further work for the moderators when they came across these posts.

I'm sorry, but by doing this you have become part of the problem and working against us.

You are not alone, many users go down the same path which led to the banning of politics because it became too time consuming for us to deal with. 

If posts were being reported and not dealt with I would accept your criticism, but I just can't when you openly admit to being part of the problem.

Please report posts. 

[Comrade 86]

12 minutes ago, David said:

Appreciate you posting it @86 points, as you have raised concerns over moderation I would like the chance to address it publicly.

"I would not report any post bar the most extreme cases. For me, that's a very slippery slope."

Shortly after posting that some aspects of moderation need looking at is incredibly frustrating to read.

All social media platforms rely heavily on users to report posts, DCFC Fans is no different. Reporting is completely anonymous and just as essential to the running of any community as the server it runs on.

Hundreds of posts are made each day, it's impossible for moderators that give up their free time to not only read every single post but fact check what is being shared across other platforms and news outlets. 

As a member of this community you were aware of potentially defamatory posts on the forum, at this point you could have taken 30 seconds to report, leave a message to moderators and the posts would likely have been removed.

Instead you chose to go to Google, find links to disprove what had been posted creating further work for the moderators when they came across these posts.

I'm sorry, but by doing this you have become part of the problem and working against us.

You are not alone, many users go down the same path which led to the banning of politics because it became too time consuming for us to deal with. 

If posts were being reported and not dealt with I would accept your criticism, but I just can't when you openly admit to being part of the problem.

Please report posts. 

Deleted was an unnecessary hissy fit.

[David]

9 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Deleted was an unnecessary hissy fit.

Didn't see it, but sorry you felt the need to. 

As I say I wanted to address it publicly because all members need to understand the role they have in a community and we all have a part to play that is all.

I use Twitter, as a user on their platform if I come across something that I deem to be unacceptable I will report it. See Nov 25. Not because I'm a snitch or a grass, but I enjoy using the platform and understand my role as a user.

[ronnieronalde]

3 hours ago, 86 points said:

Ronnie, you've always seemed a thoroughly decent chap to me but there are elements of your post that are quite troubling. Firstly, a child being throat-slammed to the floor while his assailant screams, ‘I’m going to ducking drown you’ is not comparable with the Gazza dentist chair celebration. It does you no favours to suggest otherwise. It transpires that this has been going on for months now and his sister has also been regularly assaulted. As you point out, it’s not waterboarding per se, but it sure as fook ain’t mere jolly japes either. You may regard it as nothing serious, but I doubt the children in question feel the same way. Would you laugh it off so easily, I wonder, if it were your son or daughter being bullied like this?

Secondly, while it is true that pretty much all nationalities and creeds have racists amongst their number, and I readily concede that the English are nowhere near the worst offenders in this regard, where is it suggested that only white folk are racist? That is a straw man fallacy, right there. It’s quite ironic how outraged some are by minorities apparently ‘playing the race card’ when they seem totally oblivious to how often they do it themselves, even in their own countries. 

I didn't say anything about it not being terrible. I think you need to go back and read m,y quotes. I just didn't see it as waterboarding or against he geneva convention. I don't think over dramatising things does it any favours either. The poor young lad got up and walked away, no coughing, no spluttering. Yes it was bullying and yes it was bad. But waterboarding? Geneva convention? 

Secondly and I'm doing this almost grimacing cos it's not all about me but feel in light of your post I need to respond by helping you understand the upbringing I had.

That's me underneath my "dad's" legs. This was Sunderland in the late 70's. I was bullied probably more than most kids can imagine, terrified to walk the streets and sometimes terrified to go home. I'd have my shoes taken off me and made to walk barefoot in the snow, I'd have groups of eight to ten taking turns to punch me in the face. I'd have people taking turns to sit on my head and fart in my mouth (sounds funnier than it is). All because my mam married a black guy.

Every day at school was a nightmare and sometimes it was the teachers who did the bullying. I saw what racism did in it's purest form, to us as kids and to him as a dad. it broke him,our house would be petrol bombed, if we could ever affrod to go away for a day we'd come home and the house was wrecked witth spray paint and human poo on the walls saying go home nigger. So when you say it does me no favours. I'm not sure what you mean. I don't post to do myself favours. I post what I see is the truth.

The second picture below is my mixed race step brother. I went everywhere with him and that was the biggest reason I got my head kicked in most days. If you were fighting him, you were fighting me. He was bullied a school, he was bullied in the army, he drank himself to death last year living in a one room bedsit too proud to ask for help.

So yeah, I',m white, I'm middle aged and I say other sides can be racist as well but I say it coming from a position of more education and more first hand experience than most. Please don't use my post as any indication of racism. It makes me incredibly upset and it's just wrong.

I hate racism in any form. I hate bullying in any form. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, 86 points said:

Doesn't say anything of the sort. It states, whether you agree with it or not, that the poster believes there is an imbalance in terms of moderation, a bias if you like. The rest of it you've made up so that you can have a pop and a pretty transparent effort at that. 

Before I get the standard 'white-knighting' piffle levelled at me, let me state categorically that I agree with the poster's assessment. By way of recent example, there was a series of what were potentially defamatory posts (statements already subject to legal action) on this thread, propagating a series of claims that the Syrian lad was involved in bullying other children himself, notably an attack on a young English girl. The poster also claimed there was no reporting of the boys behaviour because of an apparent media conspiracy to bury the story. These claims were left up on the thread all day and then overnight until I posted 5 links (out of the dozens spat out by a single Google search) to media reports that had been online for up to 7 days and that showed that the source of the claims, Tommy Robinson, had been duped. One also included a statement from West Yorkshire police saying that the claimed reports and video of the boy attacking the young girl simply don't exist. It might have been a boring post, but it certainly wasn't rude or inflammatory, yet it was taken down within minutes of posting, as no doubt will this be. The reason I was given when I enquired why, was that I had strayed off topic, which I glibly accepted with a polite 'thank you' and went on with my day. There was no point in arguing the toss as clearly my response to the original posts was considered worthier of moderation than the posts they responded to. With all due respect, I can’t see how. 

And that, good sir, is why a good few folk (not just Lambchop) feel that some aspects of the moderation of the site need looking at. This said, with a politics ban in place, there is arguably less need to labour the point.  It's also worth mentioning that what has proven a highly divisive and inflammatory topic in the past, has, by and large, been discussed in a pretty grown up and civilised manner, despite folk having widely disparate views, so perhaps some lessons have been learnt.

Well I'm afraid I interpreted the post very differently to you.

I think the poster in question makes as many inflammatory posts as anyone else on this forum but then is not happy with being challenged on their views.

Would I want their views moderated and removed? No. It's a forum for exchanging views.

Out of interest I wonder if the poster will be campaigning for this thread to be closed or all accusations of racism to be removed now the police have concluded there was no racial intent? If not, why not? 

FWIW I would not want it closing, as threads like this are a reminder that too many people are quick to jump to conclusions in certain situations. 

[rynny]

39 minutes ago, 86 points said:

It's not my intention to be disingenuous. If I am wrong about the timing of the posts in question then I apologise without reservation.  It is not my intention to mislead anyone. That notwithstanding, I stand by my comments about my lack of confidence in that I could offer any number of other past examples, as could others. I'm sorry if you feel I am being overly critical and my post was not in any way intended as a slur on you or anyone else for that matter, that was not my intention and whilst it was you that responded to my query, that doesn't mean I knew it was you that removed the post in any case. It's a shame that rather than addressing the general message of the post - a perceived bias - that this has now been made a personal issue due to me having mistaken the timings of the posts. I'm not sure why you've automatically assumed that I'm trying to mislead folk rather than simply having made a mistake. 

You made it sound as though your post was singled out, that it was only you that had gone off topic, and are still questioning the reason it was hidden, as if there is some hidden agenda behind it, even though I said there was nothing wrong in your post under the old terms.

Using this moderation as a stick to beat us moderators, as an example to prove that we are biased is really galling, and hard to take, especially after our exchange on pm, where I even included that if I hadn't explained it in a satisfactory manner then to say so. 

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I didn't say anything about it not being terrible. I think you need to go back and read m,y quotes. I just didn't see it as waterboarding or against he geneva convention. I don't think over dramatising things does it any favours either. The poor young lad got up and walked away, no coughing, no spluttering. Yes it was bullying and yes it was bad. But waterboarding? Geneva convention? 

Secondly and I'm doing this almost grimacing cos it's not all about me but feel in light of your post I need to respond by helping you understand the upbringing I had.

That's me underneath my "dad's" legs. This was Sunderland in the late 70's. I was bullied probably more than most kids can imagine, terrified to walk the streets and sometimes terrified to go home. I'd have my shoes taken off me and made to walk barefoot in the snow, I'd have groups of eight to ten taking turns to punch me in the face. I'd have people taking turns to sit on my head and fart in my mouth (sounds funnier than it is). All because my mam married a black guy.

Every day at school was a nightmare and sometimes it was the teachers who did the bullying. I saw what racism did in it's purest form, to us as kids and to him as a dad. it broke him,our house would be petrol bombed, if we could ever affrod to go away for a day we'd come home and the house was wrecked witth spray paint and human poo on the walls saying go home nigger. So when you say it does me no favours. I'm not sure what you mean. I don't post to do myself favours. I post what I see is the truth.

The second picture below is my mixed race step brother. I went everywhere with him and that was the biggest reason I got my head kicked in most days. If you were fighting him, you were fighting me. He was bullied a school, he was bullied in the army, he drank himself to death last year living in a one room bedsit too proud to ask for help.

So yeah, I',m white, I'm middle aged and I say other sides can be racist as well but I say it coming from a position of more education and more first hand experience than most. Please don't use my post as any indication of racism. It makes me incredibly upset and it's just wrong.

I hate racism in any form. I hate bullying in any form. 

I don't think for one moment you are a racist Ronnie. I took issue with you comparing what happened to that kid to Gazza's goal celebration. That's the start, middle and end of it. I'm mixed race myself, so we have some commonality. I read the balance of your post with regret - it's something I can certainly relate to but I have not set about implying you are any kind of a racist so the justification was not really needed. As I stated clearly in my post, I've never had any kind of an issue with you, quite the opposite and I don't really think my post infers otherwise. What I take from your above post and my own experiences is that progress has been made. One of the things I take pride in when I think of England, is the multicultural nature of the country and the fact that actually, we are way less racist as a race than the vast majority. There remains work to do however. I'm genuinely sorry if this interaction has brought up bad memories for you. I just thought elements of your post seemed out of character. I'm giving any and all threads of even a vaguely controversial nature a wide berth in future. Where David and I are in agreement is that these things are best discussed (if at all) in person over a pint and not on a football forum. I should know better.

[Comrade 86]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Well I'm afraid I interpreted the post very differently to you.

I think the poster in question makes as many inflammatory posts as anyone else on this forum but then is not happy with being challenged on their views.

Would I want their views moderated and removed? No. It's a forum for exchanging views.

Out of interest I wonder if the poster will be campaigning for this thread to be closed or all accusations of racism to be removed now the police have concluded there was no racial intent? If not, why not? 

FWIW I would not want it closing, as threads like this are a reminder that too many people are quick to jump to conclusions in certain situations. 

Fair enough G-Star. I'm not going to speculate on the queries you raise but I agree that these threads should be kept open. That said, I'm going to avoid them in future myself. It's too easy to upset people and that's really not healthy. 

[ronnieronalde]

4 hours ago, 86 points said:

Ronnie, you've always seemed a thoroughly decent chap to me but there are elements of your post that are quite troubling. Firstly, a child being throat-slammed to the floor while his assailant screams, ‘I’m going to ducking drown you’ is not comparable with the Gazza dentist chair celebration. It does you no favours to suggest otherwise. It transpires that this has been going on for months now and his sister has also been regularly assaulted. As you point out, it’s not waterboarding per se, but it sure as fook ain’t mere jolly japes either. You may regard it as nothing serious, but I doubt the children in question feel the same way. Would you laugh it off so easily, I wonder, if it were your son or daughter being bullied like this?

Secondly, while it is true that pretty much all nationalities and creeds have racists amongst their number, and I readily concede that the English are nowhere near the worst offenders in this regard, where is it suggested that only white folk are racist? That is a straw man fallacy, right there. It’s quite ironic how outraged some are by minorities apparently ‘playing the race card’ when they seem totally oblivious to how often they do it themselves, even in their own countries. 

An overly harsh reply pal. Making a lot of assumptions and insinuations that simply weren't in my post.

I made the comment about Gazza's celebration mainly in response to @BathRam72 who made the waterboarding comment and mentioned that there was a reason it had been banned by the geneva convention. I didn't make it to be flippant, my own view is that anyone claiming what they saw there was waterboarding was wildly exaggerating. At no point did I say it wasn't serious, or laugh it off.

I like you, I won't fall out with you over this, I hope you can re-read what I wrote across the whole thread and see that the only point we disagree on is the extremity of what was a cowardly attack.

 

[StringerBell]

16 minutes ago, 86 points said:

I don't think for one moment you are a racist Ronnie. I took issue with you comparing what happened to that kid to Gazza's goal celebration. That's the start, middle and end of it. I'm mixed race myself, so we have some commonality. I read the balance of your post with regret - it's something I can certainly relate to but I have not set about implying you are any kind of a racist so the justification was not really needed. As I stated clearly in my post, I've never had any kind of an issue with you, quite the opposite and I don't really think my post infers otherwise. What I take from your above post and my own experiences is that progress has been made. One of the things I take pride in when I think of England, is the multicultural nature of the country and the fact that actually, we are way less racist as a race than the vast majority. There remains work to do however. I'm genuinely sorry if this interaction has brought up bad memories for you. I just thought elements of your post seemed out of character. I'm giving any and all threads of even a vaguely controversial nature a wide berth in future. Where David and I are in agreement is that these things are best discussed (if at all) in person over a pint and not on a football forum. I should know better.

Less racist as a race?

[ronnieronalde]

11 minutes ago, 86 points said:

Fair enough G-Star. I'm not going to speculate on the queries you raise but I agree that these threads should be kept open. That said, I'm going to avoid them in future myself. It's too easy to upset people and that's really not healthy. 

I don't hold any sway on this forum, goodness knows I've caused my fair share or arguments but....

Don't duck controversial threads pal, it's brave talking about things and having the balls to put your views out there even when you know you're going to get a bit of a negative backlash. It's by discussing things that things get better, I used to force myself to sit in a room with racists to hear why they felt the way the did. I once played half a season for one of the biggest racist football teams in Sunderland.

I hated every moment of it but it gave me the chance to tell them why I saw it as wrong, Did it change anything? I don't know.

I then wen't to play for a team where I was the only white lad and got lumps kicked out of me every week, and that was in training as well as in games. Football has a great power, it forces people together who wouldn't usually give each other the time of day.

I'd rather people's views were allowed to stay, at least that way you know where you stand. I understand and agree the moderators have an almost impossible job though and remember they are just people, people with their own views.

Don't give threads like this a miss, get your voice heard and your opinions made. As long as we don't insult each other or post stuff that will get David into trouble, healthy discussion is what makes this place as good as it is.

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

I don't hold any sway on this forum, goodness knows I've caused my fair share or arguments but....

Don't duck controversial threads pal, it's brave talking about things and having the balls to put your views out there even when you know you're going to get a bit of a negative backlash. It's by discussing things that things get better, I used to force myself to sit in a room with racists to hear why they felt the way the did. I once played half a season for one of the biggest racist football teams in Sunderland.

I hated every moment of it but it gave me the chance to tell them why I saw it as wrong, Did it change anything? I don't know.

I then wen't to play for a team where I was the only white lad and got lumps kicked out of me every week, and that was in training as well as in games. Football has a great power, it forces people together who wouldn't usually give each other the time of day.

I'd rather people's views were allowed to stay, at least that way you know where you stand. I understand and agree the moderators have an almost impossible job though and remember they are just people, people with their own views.

Don't give threads like this a miss, get your voice heard and your opinions made. As long as we don't insult each other or post stuff that will get David into trouble, healthy discussion is what makes this place as good as it is.

Fair do's mate. I'm kind of bemused as I seem to have pissed off everyone today and I think my comments have clearly come across a deal more harsh than intended. Perhaps they were more thoughtless than I'd considered. I've not slept for 36 hours so perhaps there's a lesson to be learnt there. 

[Comrade 86]

20 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

An overly harsh reply pal. Making a lot of assumptions and insinuations that simply weren't in my post.

I made the comment about Gazza's celebration mainly in response to @BathRam72 who made the waterboarding comment and mentioned that there was a reason it had been banned by the geneva convention. I didn't make it to be flippant, my own view is that anyone claiming what they saw there was waterboarding was wildly exaggerating. At no point did I say it wasn't serious, or laugh it off.

I like you, I won't fall out with you over this, I hope you can re-read what I wrote across the whole thread and see that the only point we disagree on is the extremity of what was a cowardly attack.

 

I think our posts have crossed Ronnie. I replied earlier to your initial response and hopefully that will make things a bit clearer. There's no danger of us falling out, I hope and if I seemed overly harsh then I apologise. I've annoyed everyone today so perhaps I should get some sleep! 

[CWC1983]

@86 points

Its difficult not to bite your lip sometimes, and we both thought we were questioning someone's comments in this thread in a fairly constructive way and at the same time trying to post evidence to back up our points.  

The posts got pulled, fair enough, I can understand because of the inflammatory nature of the person we posted about. 

I guess we are all on a football message board and have a common bond in the club we want to do well. However, as with any walk of life, there will be people on here who we dont share the same morals or views with and never the twain shall meet. 

 

 

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

@86 points

Its difficult not to bite your lip sometimes, and we both thought we were questioning someone's comments in this thread in a fairly constructive way and at the same time trying to post evidence to back up our points.  

The posts got pulled, fair enough, I can understand because of the inflammatory nature of the person we posted about. 

I guess we are all on a football message board and have a common bond in the club we want to do well. However, as with any walk of life, there will be people on here who we dont share the same morals or views with and never the twain shall meet. 

 

 

It's a me and my big mouth day I reckon. Heyho, life goes on. Hopefully the lads can give us some cheer this afternoon otherwise I really might go into meltdown!