BensGrandad

[flying high]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

 

[Hillian1]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

I rather fancy that you are wrong.

 

[KZNSeagull]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

Oh yeah, must be right. I must have imagined all those threads in the last few weeks banging on about how crap the manager/players/management team/chairman are.

 

[flying high]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

I rather fancy that you are wrong.

Technically it was an infraction which took him over the limit. This will happen everytime a mod decides he doesnt like or agree with what BG says.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Technically it was an infraction which took him over the limit. This will happen everytime a mod decides he doesnt like or agree with what BG says.

So he wasn't banned for that post then

 

[TottonSeagull]

Although I don't think BG is malicious, sometimes he really needs to think about what he posts! The remembrance day post is just one in a long line of 'strange' posts. I actually found myself agreeing with him in some of the other posts he made last night ......... Just needs to engage brain a little more.

 

[WATFORD zero]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

Have a look at that thread again and tell me at what point is ceased to be a reverential and dignified thread about remembrance. (If you need a further clue, look between posts 29 and 30).

For that, he deserves a ban, let alone his further ramblings. Show some respect

 

[flying high]

No totting up so when the ban is finished the slate is not wiped clean so when one of tge mods dont agree with his views again will receive another infraction which will take him above the limit again. I have told him to forget NSC and if he wishes to discuss BHA to post on brightonfans

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

I did not think threads were permitted commenting on other users....so here is my tenpenneth worth..

He is an original so that counts for something....i would have been in 2005 became an NSC user but opted for BBC 606 at the time and did not use my then newly created NSC account..

But the biggest thing i think with BG is he is misunderstood and this is in the main an age thing..

He reminds me of my old man and i have plenty of time for him too.....so BG you are alright in mybook..

 

[TottonSeagull]

[/B]

I have told him to forget NSC and if he wishes to discuss BHA to post on brightonfans

The first sensible comment from a member of your family to date!

 

[Bozza]

I would imagine when BG ran pubs (did anyone know about this, BTW - I don't think he's ever mentioned it) if someone came into his pub and wished a paedophile attack upon all of his patrons, that person would be barred. Permanently.

BG is very fortunate that we have been pretty forgiving of some of his more outrageous outbursts on here, understanding that senility can present itself in many guises, some of them particularly unpleasant.

BG and his family would be wise to take a couple of days on the virtual naughty step in good grace or it will just be made permanent to save us all the hassles of having to deal with him.

 

[edna krabappel]

Technically it was an infraction which took him over the limit. This will happen everytime a mod decides he doesnt like or agree with what BG says.

Consider that many, many infractions are brought about as a result of complaints by users. The moderators, believe it or not, don't have time to comb through every thread and post on here, hunting down perceived slights or offensive posts. We do sometimes pick stuff up, but often, we rely on others to identify things that are problematic, unacceptable, inappropriate or whatever.

I can assure you that the post which resulted in his infraction- and consequent temporary ban under the totting up procedure- was the subject of complaint by board users.

So please: don't kid yourself that BG's current predicament is the result of some sort of moderator-led witch hunt.

Thanks.

 

[Bozza]

No totting up so when the ban is finished the slate is not wiped clean so when one of tge mods dont agree with his views again will receive another infraction which will take him above the limit again. I have told him to forget NSC and if he wishes to discuss BHA to post on brightonfans

Not so - you are wildly guessing about something you know nothing about.

Infractions expire 90 days after issue. All but the most flagrant of anti-social people should have no problem in keeping their noses clean and not incurring a posting restriction each and every time they **** up.

 

[edna krabappel]

I have told him to forget NSC and if he wishes to discuss BHA to post on brightonfans

Probably for the best. At least then, when he says something grotesquely offensive, nobody will notice.

 

[El Presidente]

No totting up so when the ban is finished the slate is not wiped clean so when one of tge mods dont agree with his views again will receive another infraction which will take him above the limit again. I have told him to forget NSC and if he wishes to discuss BHA to post on brightonfans

Infractions do have a shelf life, so after a period of time the slate is wiped clean.

As one of his biggest fans, do you agree with his post in relation to wishing a paedophile attacks the children of some of the people BG disagrees with?

 

[flying high]

He is banned again for having the audacity to suggest that the club should have recognised current serving soldiers etc in yestedays commemoration. Pathetic action by El Presidente perhaps Harty is correct about the mods and censorship of anything said against the club.

Have a look at that thread again and tell me at what point is ceased to be a reverential and dignified thread about remembrance. (If you need a further clue, look between posts 29 and 30).

For that, he deserves a ban, let alone his further ramblings. Show some respect

I think he based the cheap option on the fact that he said about Christ Hospital band at the Lord Mayor Show and was told they are not cheap so assumed that woukd be the case for most army musicians. I know he felt at the time that current serving persons didnt receive sufficient recognition, which was the crux of his post

 

[flying high]

Infractions do have a shelf life, so after a period of time the slate is wiped clean.

As one of his biggest fans, do you agree with his post in relation to wishing a paedophile attacks the children of some of the people BG disagrees with?

That is old news and shouldnt be continually rehashed he said at the time it was very badly worded and didnt come out as intended and as he meant and subsequently apologised to everybody. That should now be dropped. The current infraction is because he thought serving persons didnt receive sufficient recognition and cited possibly cost cutting as a reason. What is the problem with that?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I think he based the cheap option on the fact that he said about Christ Hospital band at the Lord Mayor Show and was told they are not cheap so assumed that woukd be the case for most army musicians. I know he felt at the time that current serving persons didnt receive sufficient recognition, which was the crux of his post

Do you think he conveyed that with

The remembrance of the fallen was very well observed by all but watching the FL show I did notice that most Championship clubs had a military presence. dont understand why it always the Army not Navy or RAF, but what did we have The Salvation Army at probably little or no cost to the club. Whist not wishing to knock the club it is indicative of our club at the moment everything as cheap as possible.

I suggest a post saying 'I would have liked to have seen more serving people represented' may have made the point better than having a pop about the club doing everything on the cheap. If he was being picked on, i would defend him, but here he tried to have a pop at the club in a thread which was about remembrance. If I was a mod i would have given him a week's ban for that alone.

 

[flying high]

As I keep saying he assumed rightly or wrongly it was down to cost as most things seem to be at the club with FFP.

 

[El Presidente]

That is old news and shouldnt be continually rehashed he said at the time it was very badly worded and didnt come out as intended and as he meant and subsequently apologised to everybody. That should now be dropped.

What exactly was badly worded and didn't come out as intended?

t works, so dont knock the Daily Mail if that is your attitude I hope you become a victim of either a burglar or even a paedo for a child.

The current infraction is because he thought serving persons didnt receive sufficient recognition and cited possibly cost cutting as a reason. What is the problem with that?

There's absolutely no problem with that at all, and if he had said that I am sure many would have agreed, however instead he wrote:

Ok I am wrong lets just forget those serving now and any that could lose their lives in the very near future, they do not deserve or warrant recognition.