AspectFox Posted 12 January 2015 Author Posted 12 January 2015 I'm amazed my video is still there tbh.There in lies the issue, someone that follows the clique can do and type pretty much what they like, If you don't have 15,000 posts or haven't played 5 a side on St Margaret's Way with the usual suspects, you are a either a Troll or your opinions simply don't matter. This can be disputed until the cows come home but myself and others have pretty much backed up this claim on this thread . The Sleight of hand shown by some on this forum would get you put in prison in real life for collusion and corruption.
AspectFox Posted 12 January 2015 Author Posted 12 January 2015 Great example. I never once claimed that. I stated that I considered that Cattermole, or a Cattermole type player, would be more beneficial to our plight than would Cambiasso. I also said wait and see how Cambiasso would be. Whether he was still great or not. Great example, reticent though I am to bring it up again..but again...(see the theme?), I'm responding to someone who has. I have seen responses to your posts that are pretty harsh Col but it seems because you are civil in your retort, they get left alone. I could drum up hundreds of posts on here that should be considered removable if today's rule of thumb was to be followed but they being there still are what contributes to my belief that if you are a dedicated follower of certain posters, you will be left alone with impunity!
Buce Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I agree like when I said that if Chelsea made a new offer for Kramaric and it was accepted he'd end up going there (perfectly reasonable and logical and almost certainly true), I got all sorts of abuse for saying something people didnt want to hear and then banned from the transfer section. I'm not complaining but it does seem odd. Your reputation as a troll goes before you, Moose. It's like the story of the boy who cried, "wolf" - nobody takes you seriously any longer. That said, it seems an odd thing to be censored for, particularly when I think of some of the things you do get past the mods.
Merging Cultures Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I think people are seen as trolls or WUMs if they just pitch up and start criticising other fans and posters. Personally, when I joined I took the time to figure out who was who. I'd post a little bit here and there until I felt I could contribute more and be more critical. But I think people, including me, object to new posters thinking they know it all and being really strong with their opinions. Get to know people, don't be so divisive and don't go around criticising other fans. Know that your opinion matters, but so does everyone else's.
Mike Oxlong Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Wasn't expecting to receive so much abuse for it and I was quite upset. Pics or not true.
MooseBreath Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Your reputation as a troll goes before you, Moose. It's like the story of the boy who cried, "wolf" - nobody takes you seriously any longer. That said, it seems an odd thing to be censored for, particularly when I think of some of the things you do get past the mods. Another example of somebody trying to influence the mods right here.
Buce Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Another example of somebody trying to influence the mods right here. Now you're just being paranoid.I rarely agree with anything you have to say, but 99% of the time I will support your right to say it; sometimes you overstep the mark.
Jon the Hat Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 You realise that freedom of speech only means the government can't silence you for your opinions, and even that comes with caveats. Foxestalk is a private platform and the owner/mods can remove whatever the hell they like - if you don't like it, then you're under no obligation to stay... I don't agree with your definition of freedom of speech. Certainly the law / state intervention is one factor, but there are others. Ask yourself why if Charlie Hebdo publishes pics of Mohammed why everyone else doesn't. Self censorship and the societal imposition of what is acceptable and what not.
The Doctor Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I don't agree with your definition of freedom of speech. Certainly the law / state intervention is one factor, but there are others. Ask yourself why if Charlie Hebdo publishes pics of Mohammed why everyone else doesn't. Self censorship and the societal imposition of what is acceptable and what not. The right to free speech only protects you from government censorship - so I can't be arrested for saying George osbourne looks like a stoned tree frog and has no idea what he's doing. Everything else, newspapers, radio stations, TV shows, forums - they have the right to refuse content for whatever reason they feel like. Conversely they can also publish what they like, provided it's not libellous or illegal: hence why Charlie Hebdo can publish those cartoons of Mohammed. They're free to publish them, people are free to be offended by them, the only problem comes when those offended break the laws with their reaction.
kingcarr21 Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Lets just have a free for all and finally get some nipples on this forum
MooseBreath Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 http://www.openhouseimports.com/shop/images/trolls/nyformtrollbabycryingw.jpg[/i] Your implication here is just yet another attempt to influence the mods I'm afraid.
Babylon Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I agree like when I said that if Chelsea made a new offer for Kramaric and it was accepted he'd end up going there (perfectly reasonable and logical and almost certainly true), I got all sorts of abuse for saying something people didnt want to hear and then banned from the transfer section. I'm not complaining but it does seem odd. Yeah ok... it had absolutely nothing to do with you telling people the deal was off every five minutes I'm sure. Sometimes you need to accept if you act like a little kid you will be treated like one. Prime example right there for you. I do believe there is sometimes a kind of siege mentality on the forum. I'm talking about the football forum now. From what I've experienced, if your views sometimes differ from the mainstream, you are immediately chastised. If you reinforce them (usually on the back of being chastised ie. Giving a response to someone who's taken the piss), you are chastised further. Then if you don't back down, you are branded 'a troublemaker', or 'negative' or a 'hater'. It's a bit like being back at school. And it seems to happen if you are perceived as being 'critical' of some aspect of the club, it's management or the players. A bit like being considered 'disloyal' or not a true fan if you do this. Regarding having threads deleted, I've never suffered that. But I have had posts deleted. My issue with that has been that certain other posts, IMO far more provocative have stayed.. And I've very rarely been offered any sort of answer as to why that is. Plenty of people are critical of things without receiving any of the stuff you talk about. Perhaps you should ponder on that.
Guest Col city fan Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Yeah ok... it had absolutely nothing to do with you telling people the deal was off every five minutes I'm sure. Sometimes you need to accept if you act like a little kid you will be treated like one. Prime example right there for you. Plenty of people are critical of things without receiving any of the stuff you talk about. Perhaps you should ponder on that. I think it's pretty clear why.When hit with dissent, some people will back down. Sometimes they may change their views based upon a reply or a series of replies. And thats fine. Sometimes I've done that with your posts actually. Sometimes I've thought, 'yep, Babs is right over that, fair play'. At other times though, I think people back down not because they think that someone was correct (and that they were wrong), but because they don't want to get embroiled in an argument. A bit like the school playground again..a kind of 'shying away' from controversy and conflict. That's just my perception, I may be wrong on that. I'm not like that and never have been. If I believe I'm right, and people keep arguing, I'll generally argue back. Unfortunately this can sometimes lead to silliness. A good example of this is Cambiasso. Over recent weeks, I can't recollect bringing him up much. But others have, citing my name... so I reply.. and then, of course, I'm seen to be having a pop at Cambiasso again. When actually, I'm simply responding.
Babylon Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I think it's pretty clear why. When hit with dissent, some people will back down. Sometimes they may change their views based upon a reply or a series of replies. And thats fine. Sometimes I've done that with your posts actually. Sometimes I've thought, 'yep, Babs is right over that, fair play'. At other times though, I think people back down not because they think that someone was correct (and that they were wrong), but because they don't want to get embroiled in an argument. A bit like the school playground again..a kind of 'shying away' from controversy and conflict. That's just my perception, I may be wrong on that. I'm not like that and never have been. If I believe I'm right, and people keep arguing, I'll generally argue back. Unfortunately this can sometimes lead to silliness. A good example of this is Cambiasso. Over recent weeks, I can't recollect bringing him up much. But others have, citing my name... so I reply.. and then, of course, I'm seen to be having a pop at Cambiasso again. When actually, I'm simply responding. I've been critical of Pearson a fair bit this season but I've never had a single person lambast me for it or made me feel like I can't post that view. I know there are 1000's of negative posts of that go unchallenged. That's generally because they are fact based arguments that are very difficult to argue against and they get repeated once or twice and people move on. The people who come in for the most critisism are the ones who either post the same thing, over and over and over again and become repetitive, those who jump to conclusions and lambast the management / players / owners etc without knowing the full story, and those who basically only bother coming on the forum when things aren't going well to post negative stuff. Unfortunately for you, you've become someone people like to poke with a stick mainly down the the Cattermole thing. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with that at the time and I don't believe I ever passed comment on that, and you were also perfectly correct about saying lets wait and see about Cambiasso. For me the problem lay with all the stuff that had gone on before it, which personally I felt made people have an over the top reaction to the Cattermole comment. Now it's just seen as something people will give you a bit of a ribbing over, like I have been doing with DCM comments the last two years! My view it's not the opinion that causes the problem most of the time, but how it's expressed. Those that run in to trouble over and over again tend to have a style of expressing themselves that will rub people up the wrong way.
Raj Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 This is like the kids fighting at Villa and City!! Which of you have the stone Island and Nike Air? The rest of us will just hold you back as you get angrier and angrier!!!
leicsmac Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I've been critical of Pearson a fair bit this season but I've never had a single person lambast me for it or made me feel like I can't post that view. I know there are 1000's of negative posts of that go unchallenged. That's generally because they are fact based arguments that are very difficult to argue against and they get repeated once or twice and people move on. The people who come in for the most critisism are the ones who either post the same thing, over and over and over again and become repetitive, those who jump to conclusions and lambast the management / players / owners etc without knowing the full story, and those who basically only bother coming on the forum when things aren't going well to post negative stuff. Unfortunately for you, you've become someone people like to poke with a stick mainly down the the Cattermole thing. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with that at the time and I don't believe I ever passed comment on that, and you were also perfectly correct about saying lets wait and see about Cambiasso. For me the problem lay with all the stuff that had gone on before it, which personally I felt made people have an over the top reaction to the Cattermole comment. Now it's just seen as something people will give you a bit of a ribbing over, like I have been doing with DCM comments the last two years! My view it's not the opinion that causes the problem most of the time, but how it's expressed. Those that run in to trouble over and over again tend to have a style of expressing themselves that will rub people up the wrong way. Pretty much this. You're free to say what you like, but if you phrase your message in a deliberately antagonistic fashion, don't be surprised when people get antagonised.
Guest Col city fan Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I've been critical of Pearson a fair bit this season but I've never had a single person lambast me for it or made me feel like I can't post that view. I know there are 1000's of negative posts of that go unchallenged. That's generally because they are fact based arguments that are very difficult to argue against and they get repeated once or twice and people move on. The people who come in for the most critisism are the ones who either post the same thing, over and over and over again and become repetitive, those who jump to conclusions and lambast the management / players / owners etc without knowing the full story, and those who basically only bother coming on the forum when things aren't going well to post negative stuff. Unfortunately for you, you've become someone people like to poke with a stick mainly down the the Cattermole thing. Personally I didn't see anything wrong with that at the time and I don't believe I ever passed comment on that, and you were also perfectly correct about saying lets wait and see about Cambiasso. For me the problem lay with all the stuff that had gone on before it, which personally I felt made people have an over the top reaction to the Cattermole comment. Now it's just seen as something people will give you a bit of a ribbing over, like I have been doing with DCM comments the last two years! My view it's not the opinion that causes the problem most of the time, but how it's expressed. Those that run in to trouble over and over again tend to have a style of expressing themselves that will rub people up the wrong way. Very fair post that.. However, I remember when very few of us started to criticise Beckford's contribution to the team, long before many could see that he was, in fact, pants. Like myself, I believe you also had your fair share of stick over that. And that it went on for quite some time if I remember. Suddenly, you and I became 'mates' because we were saying the same thing, if I recall. I'm opiniated, but generally try to be fair. This can be seen as 'flip-flopping'.a term that you yourself have used, to take the piss I think...lets have it right? When actually, I'm just trying to be as balanced as I can be. I've even tried to do this re. Cambiasso..I've stated wait and see, I've stated I think our midfield is less mobile with him in it, but I've also stated I see him being a 'model pro' with definately a part to play. The latter bits (conveniently) get overlooked in favour of 'Cambi bashing'. But I'm used to it. Sven, Beckford, Cambiasso..I've seen the same in all three.
AspectFox Posted 12 January 2015 Author Posted 12 January 2015 Pretty much this. You're free to say what you like, but if you phrase your message in a deliberately antagonistic fashion, don't be surprised when people get antagonised.People feeling antagonised says more about themselves than the person writing the post. Sensitivity is the issue here, people need to grow up and not feel threatened at some words on the internet!
MC Prussian Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 I'd recommend AspectFox starting his own YouTube web drama series: "Me, Myself and Foxestalk". The tension, the dilemmas, the passion, the excitement, tears, anger, fear, despair, hope. It's got it all.
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 Anyone would think we were in North Korea, not an Internet forum about a football team. You should behave and be respectful towards fellow posters, if everyone was like the blue moon and grandad nobody would bother coming on the forum.
leicsmac Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 People feeling antagonised says more about themselves than the person writing the post. Sensitivity is the issue here, people need to grow up and not feel threatened at some words on the internet! That's of course your prerogative. Others, of course, also have the right to express their displeasure at someone being deliberately antagonistic. I think words are pretty important in the grand scheme of things (people have died because of them), but on here? Yeah, it's all pretty much unimportant. That being said, I really don't see the point in making a point - even on here - in an aggressive manner that you know is probably going to piss people off either for kicks or because you think that manners aren't really important in Internet interaction, but hey.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 My handy tip for avoiding needless conflict when using the internet is, if making a statement that is your opinion rather than a fact, say 'I think' at the start of it. If you cannot differentiate between the two, just turn off the wireless router and data on your mobile and pour yourself a nice hot bath. Many thanks
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.