Why is Scholesy banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BaldwinLegend

Full Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
6,369
Location
Excuse me, I'm relaxed
Brwned said:
Yes, they're predictable and pointless.

I struggle to see how you think that it's fairly reasonable, though. If anyone else explicitly said that they are certain a player they've seen a 5 minute clip of will be playing for a top 4 club very soon, they'd get abused. Surely you can see that?

Posting something controversial and then not substantiating it, in any way, is an indication of being a troll.
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

You've very often made controversial and somewhat unsubstantiated posts yourself and yet aren't banned.

I don't see anything wrong with seeing a player in one game and then starting a thread about it saying you rate him and think he'll end up at a top club. FFS, if that's an example of what gets you banned from an internet football forum then it's ridiculous.

Personally, I found your habit of saying 'This is what Scholesy would say' in threads he'd never even visited more insulting, more predictable, patronising and more irritating than anything I ever read from Scholesy.
 

B Cantona

Desperate
Newbie
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
40,116
Location
Hated, Adored, Never Ignored
Hectic said:
It's the same thing. You wanted to know why he was banned - for being a WUM. Read below....

The Nani Nana thread, where you had a drama meltdown, and then said you weren't taking it seriously, and laughed it off. That was to save face once all the negative responses to your rants came in.

Looked pretty serious to me Brad.
Click to expand...
Sultan said he was banned because it was turning into a farce for the forum, the fallout everytime he posted. He said he might be a WUM, he said he might not. He was the one who permanently banned him, different to what you say. Regardless, that was cleared up a long time ago in the thread, and isn't what we were talking about now. If you weren't being a prat and offering stupid trades me or him, you might have kept track

The Nani thread I defended a mate who I thought had been banned for the most petty trivial matter going. I certainly was never taking it that seriously, but made a good point that it was becoming ridiculously easy to get banned these days. You took it the wrong way, a personal affront it seems. I wasn't joking to save face, but you don't believe me anyway so there's little point trying to explain, you believe what you want to believe its becoming pretty clear
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,848
Psmith said:
There's nothing wrong with that, he's a bit of a nutcase clearly but so what??

You've to be pretty sad to get affected by that.
Click to expand...
Affected by it? I've no idea what you're on about...

It's an example of him being a troll. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with them so that's why you think there's nothing wrong with it.

The mods have always said they don't have time for trolls.
 

VP

Full Member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
11,556
Nani Nana has been banned permanently? He was one of the best posters on here.
 

BaldwinLegend

Full Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
6,369
Location
Excuse me, I'm relaxed
Brwned said:
Affected by it? I've no idea what you're on about...

It's an example of him being a troll. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with them so that's why you think there's nothing wrong with it.

The mods have always said they don't have time for trolls.
Click to expand...
It's not an example of him being a troll - it's an example of him not meeting your imagined standards which you expect all posters on here to meet.

It's totally out of order to use that thread as evidence he's a troll - it's nothing of the sort.
 

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
Brwned said:
Affected by it? I've no idea what you're on about...

It's an example of him being a troll. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with them so that's why you think there's nothing wrong with it.

The mods have always said they don't have time for trolls.
Click to expand...
Wait, so starting a thread on a player you have limited knowledge of is trolling?

In that case ban anyone who has started a thread in the transfer forum.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,848
BaldwinLegend said:
No it isn't.

You've very often made controversial and somewhat unsubstantiated posts yourself and yet aren't banned.

I don't see anything wrong with seeing a player in one game and then starting a thread about it saying you rate him and think he'll end up at a top club. FFS, if that's an example of what gets you banned from an internet football forum then it's ridiculous.

Personally, I found your habit of saying 'This is what Scholesy would say' in threads he'd never even visited more insulting, more predictable, patronising and more irritating than anything I ever read from Scholesy.
Click to expand...
Once again you make things personal.

Well done Baldwin.
 

VP

Full Member
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
11,556
Brwned said:
Affected by it? I've no idea what you're on about...

It's an example of him being a troll. You seem to think there's nothing wrong with them so that's why you think there's nothing wrong with it.

The mods have always said they don't have time for trolls.
Click to expand...
No harm in a bit of wumming, everyone does it, i've done it, the mods have, if you take a step back you might notice this is an internet football forum which by definition is not serious at all.

If you had someone like Scholesy in the pub, you'd have a laugh or ignore him and just get on with it, not kick him out of the pub.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,848
phelans shorts said:
Wait, so starting a thread on a player you have limited knowledge of is trolling?

In that case ban anyone who has started a thread in the transfer forum.
Click to expand...
No, it's reinforcing a controversial point - I can tell if a player's good enough for the top four on the basis of a highlights clip - and then when challenged on this he doesn't back it up at all, he just makes other more controversial points or changes the subject.

The latter's more important than the former.

As has been said many times before, the Chief's made controversial points before but he'll always go to length to back up his own opinion. As will most others who regularly make controversial points. The rest don't regularly make controversial points because they don't want that much attention.
 

Stobzilla

Official Team Perv
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
21,939
Location
Grove Street, home.
Boss said:
He actually said that?

Maybe he was exaggerating?

Macheda has potential but he has looked pretty gash imo. :nervous:
Click to expand...
He's looked like a 19 year old striker in fairness flashes of greatness though. An innate ability to finish that given Scholesey's propensity to mention abilities that can't be taught you'd think he'd of picked up on.

He just picks a name who might turn out alright who no one is talking about and hypes them to ridiculous levels. Deflouneso > Pato ?? Come on. That's not even being silly that's being contrary for the sake of it.
 

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
Brwned said:
No, it's reinforcing a controversial point - I can tell if a player's good enough for the top four on the basis of a highlights clip - and then when challenged on this he doesn't back it up at all, he just makes other more controversial points or changes the subject.

The latter's more important than the former.

As has been said many times before, the Chief's made controversial points before but he'll always go to length to back up his own opinion. As will most others who regularly make controversial points. The rest don't regularly make controversial points because they don't want that much attention.
Click to expand...
Have we not all seen a little of a player and got a sudden feeling they are something special?

I know I have, something I can't explain that just makes me think they are going to the top of the game, how do you explain the in-explainable?

Sure I like most when I get these feelings don't go as far as posting them because I can't back it up other than personal feeling, Scholesy wanted to get it out regardless, is that something that should be frowned upon?
 

BaldwinLegend

Full Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
6,369
Location
Excuse me, I'm relaxed
Brwned said:
No, it's reinforcing a controversial point - I can tell if a player's good enough for the top four on the basis of a highlights clip - and then when challenged on this he doesn't back it up at all, he just makes other more controversial points or changes the subject.

The latter's more important than the former.
Click to expand...
To who?

So what if he doesn't back his points up? What's the worst that can happen? Why are you beside yourself about it?

What is so controversial about watching a football game, and then starting a thread on an internet forum about how you were impressed by a player in the game? FFS - the player in question actually has been linked with Liverpool and Tottenham, it's not that controversial.

What's far worse are the idiotic responses he got in that thread, as well as the abuse he generally got. Why aren't you beside yourself about that, too?
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,024
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Psmith said:
No harm in a bit of wumming, everyone does it, i've done it, the mods have, if you take a step back you might notice this is an internet football forum which by definition is not serious at all.

If you had someone like Scholesy in the pub, you'd have a laugh or ignore him and just get on with it, not kick him out of the pub.
Click to expand...
That analogy doesn't work. If someone persistently acts bizarrely in discussions amongst a group of mates he'd end up excluded from that circle of friends. Which, loosely speaking, is what this place represents.

If he wants to make random comments about football to total strangers then there's dozens of other websites on which he can do do. He's not been kicked out of any pub, just excluded from a specific group within it.

As you keep saying yourself, talking football on the internet shouldn't be taken very seriously. On that basis, does the banning really such a big deal?
 

JayWalker

Ball Spotter
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
27,770
Location
Still got the blues for you.. RIP The Loner. Hull
phelans shorts said:
Have we not all seen a little of a player and got a sudden feeling they are something special?

I know I have, something I can't explain that just makes me think they are going to the top of the game, how do you explain the in-explainable?

Sure I like most when I get these feelings don't go as far as posting them because I can't back it up other than personal feeling, Scholesy wanted to get it out regardless, is that something that should be frowned upon?
Click to expand...
In your opinion, without being inside the lads head you cannot prove it.
 

kietotheworld

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
12,638
I can understand not liking a player because of his personality, there are certain people I would never want to play for United because of their personalities, irrespective of how good they are.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,024
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
BaldwinLegend said:
To who?

So what if he doesn't back his points up? What's the worst that can happen? Why are you beside yourself about it?

What is so controversial about watching a football game, and then starting a thread on an internet forum about how you were impressed by a player in the game? FFS - the player in question actually has been linked with Liverpool and Tottenham, it's not that controversial.

What's far worse are the idiotic responses he got in that thread, as well as the abuse he generally got. Why aren't you beside yourself about that, too?
Click to expand...
He's clearly not "beside himself" about anything. He's making a point, in a very measured way.

You're just doing what you always do. Personalising the debate and attacking the person who made the post, as well as the content of their post. You've been targeting Brwned, individually, for a while now. You've previously been spiteful to Boss and Brophs (working your way the alphabet? are posters beginning with 'c' next?)

It's your perogative though. I'm guilty of something similar at times myself. More than a bit hypocritical coming from someone who is apparently on some sort of crusade against bullying on the caf, mind you.
 

RK

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
16,103
Location
Attacking Midfield
At the end of the day, if Scholesy's a WUM, he's won.

He could well be laughing his arse off reading us debating his posts when he's not even here.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,024
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
kietotheworld said:
I can understand not liking a player because of his personality, there are certain people I would never want to play for United because of their personalities, irrespective of how good they are.
Click to expand...
He's not talking about "certain players". He's talking about Danny Welbeck.

If you think that was a reasonable point to make, what insight do you and Scholesy have into his personality that escapes the rest of us?
 

JayWalker

Ball Spotter
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
27,770
Location
Still got the blues for you.. RIP The Loner. Hull
phelans shorts said:
What?

You seem to be of the impression that I made a statement about him, I was asking a question which your utterly hilarious reply made no sense of, so only but in if you have something relevant to say, deal?
Click to expand...
Not really. That was a statement you made if you care to check it, now your post can be complied with the same very statement and it makes perfect sense, obviously it doesnt to you because you just felt an overwhelming urge to say something to me and now YOU cant substantiate that. Oh and it was rather hilarious because after I replied to your post, you conveniently chose to ignore it.

Carry on though, I can understand why you need to defend Scholesy.
 

Bearded but no genius

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
67,680
While we're banning useless plonkers and self-obsessed wankers who disrupt the forums at the drop of a hat there's one in this thread who sticks out like a sore baggsy.
 

JayWalker

Ball Spotter
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
27,770
Location
Still got the blues for you.. RIP The Loner. Hull
Pogue Mahone said:
He's not talking about "certain players". He's talking about Danny Welbeck.

If you think that was a reasonable point to make, what insight do you and Scholesy have into his personality that escapes the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Thats just one of the examples.

Wasnt Scholesy the one who said " I dont like Evans' personality " and all that crap. Jesus.
 

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
Pogue Mahone said:
He's not talking about "certain players". He's talking about Danny Welbeck.

If you think that was a reasonable point to make, what insight do you and Scholesy have into his personality that escapes the rest of us?
Click to expand...
Well he's just made a character call, he feels that Welbeck has a similar character to these "certain players", where's the problem in that opinion?
 

B Cantona

Desperate
Newbie
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
40,116
Location
Hated, Adored, Never Ignored
Pogue Mahone said:
As you keep saying yourself, talking football on the internet shouldn't be taken very seriously. On that basis, does the banning really such a big deal?
Click to expand...
This is silly Pogue. You've made nearly 50,000 posts on here, if you were booted tomorrow, you wouldn't be a tad upset? I'm sure for Scholesy, who's come back time after time to post here, it is something of a deal for him. You can take things less than seriously, but still be irked when you get turfed
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,465
Location
Manchester
I think it's always a shame when you ban a poster who is serious about football and enjoys posting and contributing to the forum.
 

BaldwinLegend

Full Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
6,369
Location
Excuse me, I'm relaxed
Pogue Mahone said:
He's clearly not "beside himself" about anything. He's making a point, in a very measured way.

You're just doing what you always do. Personalising the debate and attacking the person who made the post, as well as the content of their post. You've been targeting Brwned, individually, for a while now. You've previously been spiteful to Boss and Brophs (working your way the alphabet? are posters beginning with 'c' next?)

It's your perogative though. I'm guilty of something similar at times myself. More than a bit hypocritical coming from someone who is apparently on some sort of crusade against bullying on the caf.
Click to expand...
I don't target Brwned, I disagree with him.

I think sometime in early 2008 I disagreed with Brophs about the state of British tennis - we're over it now, and get on pretty well.

The people I disagree with most - generally Lailiani, Boss and Brad - all give as good as they get. I also think you'll struggle to find outright insults in my posts to them - I disagree with their opinions on football and say so. I don't think they should be banned for their views though.

Nothing I've said is remotely 'personal' about Brwned - the examples he's posted aren't trolling, the response Scholesy got was worse, and Brwned has on numerous occasions given, uninvited, what he thinks would be Scholesy's (and others) response to something, an attitude I think can rightly be described as patronising.
 

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
JayWalker said:
Not really. That was a statement you made if you care to check it, now your post can be complied with the same very statement and it makes perfect sense, obviously it doesnt to you because you just felt an overwhelming urge to say something to me and now YOU cant substantiate that. Oh and it was rather hilarious because after I replied to your post, you conveniently chose to ignore it.

Carry on though, I can understand why you need to defend Scholesy.
Click to expand...
I know I made that post first, when you actually made a statement about his motives, which you cannot prove and is nothing like what I said, keep up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.