BensGrandad

[El Presidente]

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.

But that post was not the one that brought about the infraction, it was not the one that was reported to Mod Towers either, so I am not sure why you keep bringing it up.

The comment you refer to was certainly irrelevant, petty and unnecessary on the original thread started by [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] commending the way in which Remembrance Day was dealt with by both the club and the fans attending the game, but did not bring about the refraction.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

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

Come on, El Pres: it could happen to any of us. Who hasn't accidentally typed the words "I hope your children are taken by a paedophile" when what they actually meant to write was "I disagree with your views on the subject, somewhat"?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

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.

I genuinely don't understand why he keeps returning and posting again. Rarely do you find anyone agreeing with much that he says about any subject, and when people question him he is rude and arrogant. And occasionally, unintelligible.

It can't be good for his own mental well-being, and I know that his postings stress out many others too. I think you are right to encourage him to forget about NSC. That would be best for all of us.

 

[Hillian1]

Come on, El Pres: it could happen to any of us. Who hasn't accidentally typed the words "I hope your children are taken by a paedophile" when what they actually meant to write was "I disagree with your views on the subject, somewhat"?

I have a problem like that, whenever i respond to a Palace fan my head say's "I think you are wrong my fellow football fan" my fingers however type something quite different.

 

[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.

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





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:

What he meant to say was I hope that you DONT become etc but missed that out so it came out different than intended. As regards the offending post he posted what people were giving the impression of having, with that attitude.

 

[WATFORD zero]

What he meant to say was I hope that you DONT become etc but missed that out so it came out different than intended. As regards the offending post he posted what people were giving the impression of having, with that attitude.

I thought you showed good judgement when you resurrected this thread rather than using the remembrance thread for this discussion. Can i respectfully suggest that good judgement would advise

 

[El Presidente]

What he meant to say was I hope that you DONT become etc but missed that out so it came out different than intended. As regards the offending post he posted what people were giving the impression of having, with that attitude.

Missing out a negative word in a sentence is quite important though, and perhaps people should check their posts before submitting them.

For example there is a significant difference between posting:

"Paul Barber is a mass murderer of babies, kittens and puppies", and "Paul Barber is NOT a mass murderer of babies, kittens and puppies".

 

[Lady Whistledown]

For example there is a significant difference between posting:

"Paul Barber is a mass murderer of babies, kittens and puppies", and "Paul Barber is NOT a mass murderer of babies, kittens and puppies".

Well which is it? I think you should clarify here, as otherwise I might have to delete your post and give you an infraction, in case he sues.

 

[El Presidente]

Well which is it? I think you should clarify here, as otherwise I might have to delete your post and give you an infraction, in case he sues.

I'm not TELLING.............but it's the one that is best for the club from an FFP perspective.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I'm not TELLING.............but it's the one that is best for the club from an FFP perspective.

The cheapest option, one assumes, as with everything the club does.

 

[flying high]

The cheapest option, one assumes, as with everything the club does.

So it appears.

 

[bennibenj]

Tell you what, I think the mods have done a good job with BG. They give him chances, allow him to return and then repeatedly he comes back and makes bizarre and in cases highly offensive comments. Guy clearly has some serious issues.

The thing I find funny, when BG is banned, his finger puppet appears. In the exact same format and style, blaming everyone else, fails to acknowledge the issues and no matter what supporting him.

Bit bored of it all now.

 

[Goldstone1976]

What he meant to say was I hope that you DONT become etc but missed that out so it came out different than intended.

Utter, total, unmitigated tosh. One might even say BS.

He made the paedo post at 11:38am on 4 Oct. At 10:00pm that evening, having received over 30 thumbs down and over 20 direct replies to his offensive post (meaning he would have received notifications of people replying) he posted, in the same thread, this:

"...in hindsight it was inappropriate for me to post, in anger, what I did."

thus acknowledging that he typed what he meant to type. He did also apologise for his post, but at no stage did he, or has he, attempted to claim that he missed out a "not".

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

Flying -high is obviously BG's son or maybe even Ben, because he has exactly the same DNA.
He wont admit he is ever wrong, is always putting his massive size 11 boot in it and never knows when to give up.
Exactly the same problems that BG suffers from

 

[KZNSeagull]

134 posts since May 2009 (getting on for 20 of those today) suggests that BG has not actually been banned much at all really over the years, which goes to show how tolerant NSC is.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

134 posts since May 2009 (getting on for 20 of those today) suggests that BG has not actually been banned much at all really over the years, which goes to show how tolerant NSC is.

I would imagine you need to add a couple of 00's on to that figure!

The paedophile comment should IMHO have resulted in a permanent ban. That was disgusting.

 

[flying high]

I would think that figure is wrong possibly missed at least a digit off of the 134 as he is always on here as we keep telling him and also the people who sit near him at The Amex.

 

[Hillian1]

I would imagine you need to add a couple of 00's on to that figure!

The paedophile comment should IMHO have resulted in a permanent ban. That was disgusting.

He's talking about Flying High.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

He's talking about Flying High.

Ah, apologies!

 

[KZNSeagull]

I would imagine you need to add a couple of 00's on to that figure!

The paedophile comment should IMHO have resulted in a permanent ban. That was disgusting.

Agreed

I would think that figure is wrong possibly missed at least a digit off of the 134 as he is always on here as we keep telling him and also the people who sit near him at The Amex.

I was referring to you (flying high), who only seems to post when BG is banned. Hence as FH has only posted 135 times since May 2009, BG cannot have been banned much.