We played our part in the Exit!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you sir are a buffoon you just don't know when to stop.

 

I was banned on C&B once for a disagreement with Ed after being there from the start.
I broke no rules or slagged anybody off. What you call being a WUM is holding opinions that differ to others and standing by them.
As for not caring about the club I have helped to save the club on at least three occasions both with money and my time.
Now instead of trying to ban anybody who disagrees with you put up an argument

 

This forums very quiet apart from this announcement. We need to be careful banning people

 

By the way there is an ignore button for those people you don’t want to engage with

 

Bitterness is now behind us. We HAVE to go forward together.

 

Let it drop now Park. Now is the season to be Jolly and work together for what is achievable but is not going to be easy.

 

True, but one user livening the forum up looking for bites isn't the way to go. If only he'd try debating instead of calling people who disagree with him, racists and part of a herd then the forum may have a chance of been something more than a b*tching match.

 

I have but certain people seem to want to perpetuate it by calling for bans for people with a different point of view

 

its a shame you didn't care enough this time.

you ARE a WUM - I refuse to believe anyone at all is stupid enough to hold the opinions you spout on here.

 

Look in mirror mate and you will see someone

 

you are the forum equivalent of Adrian Durham on Talksport.

you purposely say things that are completely outlandish and unpopular enough to rile folk up to respond to you.

 

@Dennis Can I ask, in your opinion, what do you think the current financial state of the club is?

 

More popular than ever m8. We are loved by the masses, well apart from John Dewhirst.

 

Slightly confused here

1. You ask "do you find it acceptable for someone to refer to others as a "herd" if they hold a different opinion to you" - coming across like some politically correct zealot
2. I then ask why you think this is abuse when Park has had worse - for examples read what @Ricc has recently posted. I quote "I really think that now we have rid the club of [EDITED] Rahic, we should clear the forum of [EDITED] Park and banbrotam"
3. But apparently that's OK and Park (plus presumably myself) need to grow up

Can you tell my why one members abuse is OK, but the other members isn't? I mean I'm sure you don't think it is right to ignore abuse that you agree with but find it abuse acceptable as long as you agree with the comments

I find this all very amusing. Apparently, because we don't agree with you about the how disastrous the Rahic regime is - it's acceptable to describe one of us as 'Jack Russells'. Why? Are different opinions not allowed

As an example, I've just read the T&A's Simon Parker view of the Rahic regime. I disagree wholeheartedly with him. Getting rid of McCall (have you read the Scunny forum's recently?) was totally correct - where Rahic went wrong was the farce during this summer, when he thought he could hire a manager on the cheap. But now of course everything Rahic did was a disaster, because it makes a nice story and he's disliked anyway, so who cares anyway

Despite my difference of opinion with Parker, I'm pretty certain he'll respect a differing opinion and certainly won't be abusive to the writer - i.e. if it called them 'poisonous', he'd be sacked

Incidentally, I don't believe in blocking / muting people. I had far worse abuse as a black youngster growing up in the 70's and laughed that off as well. I'm afraid I'll be on these boards until either it or I expire!!!

 

and this is what I mean when I say forum equivalent of Adrian Durham.

no one of sound mind actually believes these things.

 

if I have to report every post that I feel is a WUM it'll take a long time, but if thems the rules.

ive reported banbrotams post. it's clearly looking for a rise.

 

I stayed at the time McCall should have been given time to let his new “signings” bed in and he had earned the right to turn it around. Around another 6 games would have been enough and review it then

I think Rahics Head was turned by Grayson being available and he got rid.

We cannot use McCalls record at Scunthorpe as a reason for it being the right decision. It has no bearing. At us he had enough in the bank with the precvious seasons results and we were never outside the playoffs until he left.

And it was his squad of players here. Upsetting the Apple cart was a brash and Costly decision by Rahic

 

I didn't read past the word Zealot in his response to me, but I'm guessing it was in line with a Park post of totally skirting around the question(s) he is asked.

 

Why don't folk just ignore the other folk they don't see eye to eye with.