|
Post by LJG on Jul 30, 2021 12:49:47 GMT
Other - DC. Never should have left. Just should have shipped Nicholls out and started playing the other strikers available to him.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 30, 2021 12:44:24 GMT
Compared to the utter dud Barton has been in management thus far I'd be happy to still have this fraud in charge. At least his problems are limited to the football field not the press office and courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 30, 2021 8:30:24 GMT
We all A-gree ...
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 19:48:34 GMT
Getting rid of Barton, although terrible timing, not great for all the players and coaches whove come in and inevitably expensive, would absolutely be in the best interests of the club It’s better timing now than in November or December for sure. It’s inevitable he’ll be found guilty for one or both of those charges. I reckon the club know he’s going down and are waiting for the verdict to be able to sack him without having to pay compensation. You ve obviously never been to court, you think FA cup results are odd, he might be found not guilty on one, and no evidence offered on the other. Wael has let him have full control of project restart and to sack him now would be madness and illegal. Not illegal and this clown should never have been allowed to bring his cronies in.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 16:45:46 GMT
Getting rid of Barton would probably be a start! SteveK will be along with your "re-education" in just a moment.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 16:05:21 GMT
Yes, that's the same one. It is a question which asks which people would support a convicted wife beater. It is not a statement which says Barton is a convicted wife beater. The difference is the inclusion of the word "would" rather than "who supports" or "who still supports" which indeed would be a statement that Barton has been convicted. I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. Perhaps you do and you're just enjoying this public pile-on of a single user of the forum. could should would, I can see how it can be read either way, however the fact it was in the Barton ‘In or Out’ thread and aimed at those who had voted “in” makes it clear in my mind that it is reference to Barton. Well it is in reference to Barton but it is in relation to Barton in a potential future scenario not now. The Barton in/out thread gave 3 options: - stays in - must leave - innocent until proven guilty The inclusion of innocent until proven guilty gives us information about the other two options in that it now asks us to think of them as absolutes i.e. "stays in no matter what" and "must leave no matter what" rather than "stays for now unless proven guilty" and "must leave now but we'll look silly if found not guilty". Roverdrive is asking those who have voted stays in i.e. the ones saying he must stay no matter what and not innocent until proven guilty why they would say stays in no matter what when there is a possibility that he could be a convicted wife beater. All seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 15:10:35 GMT
It's nonsense. You and a couple of others have decided to chew this particular bone to publicly target and bully one member of this forum because you have a difference of opinion over the manager. This whole Barton thing is more like a cult each day. There is no personal vendetta, I’ve no idea who RD is. I respect the views of those who don’t like Barton and want him out, I prefer innocent until proven guilty and would prefer him to remain in his job until his case is concluded. I’ve not randomly selected one of the other 50% who have a different view to me and decided to pursue them. I didn’t like how he made very vociferous public assumptions of guilt without challenge from those who moderate the forum. Like I’ve said before I don’t like the inconsistency where actions/non actions of mods are concerned. There is no assumption of guilt. The problem is reading comprehension not the opinions of the author.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 15:09:28 GMT
Did you not read my response to your previous post? Do you have a definition of overreaction? Or bullying? i really don’t know what you are reading, but here is the quote again. ”Just want to know what filth we have on here that would continue to support a convicted wife beater.” Think it’s pretty clear he is saying convicted. I don’t see any bullying or overreacting. Yes, that's the same one. It is a question which asks which people would support a convicted wife beater. It is not a statement which says Barton is a convicted wife beater. The difference is the inclusion of the word "would" rather than "who supports" or "who still supports" which indeed would be a statement that Barton has been convicted. I don't understand how you don't understand the difference. Perhaps you do and you're just enjoying this public pile-on of a single user of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 14:54:57 GMT
This whole "push the boundaries of law" and defamation thing is utter nonsense. Everything said is easily defensible on the grounds of opinion and fair comment. In relation to what mods do and don't do I think the answer to your question is that they are human beings and therefore fallible. The mods presumably don’t feel it is nonsense and one chose to raise this with a poster on this very subject. Of course we are all fallible and mistakes happen, however the mods still need to act with care and consistency to gain the trust and respect of forum members. It's nonsense. You and a couple of others have decided to chew this particular bone to publicly target and bully one member of this forum because you have a difference of opinion over the manager. This whole Barton thing is more like a cult each day.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 14:51:30 GMT
Well the quote you posted above clearly refers to the circumstances in which he is convicted. I don't think you can read that any other way. It clearly doesn't say he is convicted so the claim that this is defamatory is still silly and in my opinion motivated for personal reasons and frankly, not that far off bullying. I think it's fine to call someone who would offer support to a convicted wife beater filth. I'm genuinely struggling to see how you can have any opposition to that statement. If you have one, state your case. maybe the definition of ‘convicted’ might help you. “having been declared guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge” I don’t think he has been found guilty, therefor he is not a convicted wife beater. Did you not read my response to your previous post? Well the quote you posted above clearly refers to the circumstances in which he is convicted. I don't think you can read that any other way. It clearly doesn't say he is convicted so the claim that this is defamatory is still silly and in my opinion motivated for personal reasons and frankly, not that far off bullying. Do you have a definition of overreaction? Or bullying?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 14:28:41 GMT
The question of whether something is defamatory or not is a very niche legal question - defences include fair comment and giving opinion - the mods aren't lawyers (or at least aren't acting as such). This whole thing trying to pin a single mod for the choice of an individual to delete their account because they wanted to give succour to a WUM bully is silly. My concern with the mod in question were his behaviour, use of language but most importantly ability to push the boundaries of law without any question being raised. I don’t expect the mods to be lawyers but how do they manage to pull one poster up for pushing legal boundaries but not a word to one of their own. Are they lawyers one minute and not the next? Surely the least we can expect is consistency. For the record I don’t personally know those who have left nor the reasons why and what role any other party (mod or member) played in their decision. This whole "push the boundaries of law" and defamation thing is utter nonsense. Everything said is easily defensible on the grounds of opinion and fair comment. In relation to what mods do and don't do I think the answer to your question is that they are human beings and therefore fallible.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 14:23:35 GMT
Well the issue of domestic violence is clearly a very emotive one. You don't know what the individual's life experience is of that. I struggle to see how having a strong and vociferous opposition to such a thing could be unhealthy. Quite the opposite in fact. If a person has an equally strong support of domestic violence that they want to rebut what Roverdrive has said I'd be interested (though disgusted) to hear it. the whole purpose of the thread is about members of the forum leaving, my point is that it’s hardly surprising when they are referred to as “filth”. No one is condoning or supporting domestic violence and if they did I would expect them to have an immediate ban, but the fact is Barton is not a convicted wife beater, not yet anyway. Roverdrive should be able to get his view across without insulting everyone who has a slightly different view to him. Well the quote you posted above clearly refers to the circumstances in which he is convicted. I don't think you can read that any other way. It clearly doesn't say he is convicted so the claim that this is defamatory is still silly and in my opinion motivated for personal reasons and frankly, not that far off bullying. I think it's fine to call someone who would offer support to a convicted wife beater filth. I'm genuinely struggling to see how you can have any opposition to that statement. If you have one, state your case.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 13:39:39 GMT
The question of whether something is defamatory or not is a very niche legal question - defences include fair comment and giving opinion - the mods aren't lawyers (or at least aren't acting as such). This whole thing trying to pin a single mod for the choice of an individual to delete their account because they wanted to give succour to a WUM bully is silly. so do you think post like this are constructive and help matters? Do they promote healthy debate? ”Just want to know what filth we have on here that would continue to support a convicted wife beater. Pretty reasonable request I would think - if you've got the nerve to support someone through that, imo you should have the balls to come out and admit it. No doubt you'll continue to support your messiah” Well the issue of domestic violence is clearly a very emotive one. You don't know what the individual's life experience is of that. I struggle to see how having a strong and vociferous opposition to such a thing could be unhealthy. Quite the opposite in fact. If a person has an equally strong support of domestic violence that they want to rebut what Roverdrive has said I'd be interested (though disgusted) to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 12:53:00 GMT
I understand what you are trying to say, but to establish a "standard" is a minefield. The moderators can and should establish rules, such as WUM like behaviour, a rule that GGMI fell foul of I believe, but beyond that surely the boundaries are defamation and perhaps slander? Telling somebody to eff off is more adolescent than an abuse of a presumed standard. My opinion is that aggressive language hides an inability to argue a point coherently. By aggressive I do not mean strongly worded rebuttals, but single sentence swearing. Just my opinion. An established standard on general behaviour is one thing and I get that is difficult to achieve but what we’ve seen over the course of the past week is verging on defamation and libel. This is where I thought the mods were supposed to act to keep matters above board and also set a better example. I’ve seen one regular poster get pulled up by a mod when overstepping the mark (in a legal regard) but when a fellow mod goes even further nothing gets said. Is it any wonder that such inconsistency leads to things getting out of hand and moderators getting questioned? The question of whether something is defamatory or not is a very niche legal question - defences include fair comment and giving opinion - the mods aren't lawyers (or at least aren't acting as such). This whole thing trying to pin a single mod for the choice of an individual to delete their account because they wanted to give succour to a WUM bully is silly.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 9:34:53 GMT
If you're saying it's fair enough why raise it as part of your critique of his posts? Because it was part of a numerical analysis of his recent posts. If you have no problem with him why are you doing a numerical analysis of his recent posts?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 9:33:47 GMT
How can a poster on an internet forum be "aggressive" towards a football club? How can they be aggressive towards Barton who isn't a member of the forum? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that. It really seems like you're trying to make something out of nothing because of a personal dislike. You are more than capable of answering your own questions so I'm not taking the bait. I have no personal dislike of Roverdrive. That's a bit of an odd response. If I was capable of answering the question I would not have asked it. You've made specific allegations about someone - you should be able to defend those allegations, it's not for me to assist you in doing that. I'm still not sure what possible act of aggression there can be on an internet forum towards a football club.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 8:48:52 GMT
Like you sir, I too am fascinated by the faux outrage expressed by some because a member posts a very strong opinion about Barton. As you say, that he is a moderator is not relevant. Moderators have a responsibility to maintain acceptable standards on the forum. My post stated that it is fair enough to criticise Barton that is not the issue. If you're saying it's fair enough why raise it as part of your critique of his posts?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 8:46:59 GMT
What has being critical of Barton got to do with being a moderator? Why because Joey Barton is our manager is it suddenly different from Coughlan or Clarke? Why is he so special that he must not be criticised? If you re-read my post you will see I have stated that being critical of JB is fair enough (9 posts). It's the 47 posts which are aggressive and/or unpleasant towards posters, the club and JB which are inappropriate. How can a poster on an internet forum be "aggressive" towards a football club? How can they be aggressive towards Barton who isn't a member of the forum? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that. It really seems like you're trying to make something out of nothing because of a personal dislike.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 29, 2021 8:02:38 GMT
As someone myself who also has a difference of opinion to the pro JB brigade, I can only agree fully to Roverdrive's comment above regarding attempts of being bullied into submission as that is how it feels to me. I'm sure this comment of mine will be disliked by some of them! So I can only strongly disagree with you telling Roverdrive that he is the "f*cking bully". He is just refusing to stand down to those who treat him like sh** on a daily basis. Why can't people respectfully debate without the name calling etc. So what if people have a difference of opinion. Roverdrive is 1st of all a gashead. 2nd a member of this forum and has the right to express his opinion like anyone else. And then 3rd he is a moderator. A moderator who has been accused of things (like banning or editing threads which proves to be untrue) because he is disliked for expressing his opinion and won't back down for it. So no, Roverdrive is not abusing his position. He just has a different of opinion on certain matters and refuses to be bullied out of that opinion and has my respect for that and I hope he stays his the position of being a mod. Really? I think you see what you want to see. I don't doubt that Roverdrive is a genuine and passionate Gashead but if he is to remain as a moderator then he needs to moderate his own posts and not enflame an already difficult situation. A quick scan over his posts shows: Over the last 5 days he has posted, admittedly by my definitions: 9 posts which are critical of JB (fair enough) but 14 posts which are potentially slanderous towards JB, worryingly 19 posts which are aggressive/unpleasant towards other posters! 14 posts which are aggressive/unpleasant towards the club 8 other posts which are neutral or relate to football For example, forum members have been referred to as filth and not having any balls. Joey B is a vile human and total and utter scum. Whether you or I agree on the above or not, this is not befitting of a moderator. What has being critical of Barton got to do with being a moderator? Why because Joey Barton is our manager is it suddenly different from Coughlan or Clarke? Why is he so special that he must not be criticised?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2021 20:37:04 GMT
What are we supposed to be doing here? Begging Tilly to come back or all agreeing that a certain banned WUM bully is actually a misunderstood sweetheart?
What are all these acts of harakiri in aid of?
|
|