He's back...

There is nothing wrong with sock accounts per se, Bambi. Some of the most hilarious posters on this forum have been socks. 667 - The Neighbour of the Beast and A87, for example.

It's when cowards use socks to break the rules and cross lines, that's when harsh lessons need to be taught.

I'm sure that whoever is behind the Fosse sock knows that.

 

I no longer have any socks, Pix, as you well know. Both of mine have been wiped out. Neither of them did any real wrong or damage, and each was loved, in its own way.

The Village Bike account was not forcibly closed for being a sock, it was closed for being used as a cover for some coward who did something that the coward knew was wrong. To speak of The Village Bike being "banned" is a misnomer, because the coward behind that sock hasn't been banned.

What I want - for the well-being of this site - is to see the coward behind the sock banned.

Not for having created a sock, but for having crossed a line.

 

Are you talking about Saints08 now, Quents? ... he seems to have disappeared, as if by magic; happened when some wizard cursed him with the "Jaytab" enchantment ..

 

No, I am not talking about Saints08, Bambi.

I have no idea whether or not Saints08 was a sock or a genuine user.

What has that got to do with anything that I have just written?

 

Yeah right Regardless, you said that the person behind the sock should be banned.

Also I think @brb has some news for you regarding Arsenal87. Are you still trying to claim that was your sock. Think carefully before answering

 

You having 'very recently' become a stickler for 'rules' Quentin ... aren't sock accounts against the rules generally?

 

Please Sir ... ban them all for using a sock, apart from me !

****ing melt

 

I think nothing short of a public hanging would appease a certain north London element but even if that happened they would still cry about the persecution for 5 decades.

 

I think there's everything wrong about having a sock account. It proves that people who indulge in this type of activity are predomitably cowards like the tit who posted personal details about an average guitarists life. I for one would never condone such an action as funny as it was. A secondary account also shows a lack of intellect and natural wit hence why the aggrieved has many.

 

I agree and fully recommend that you use the full letter of the law to prosecute this hilariously funny wag.

 

I know who owned that sock @Hoddle Is A God but I'm afraid I am not at liberty to divulge people's personal information on this site. Some sort of Data Protection Act stops me from sharing.

 

Good man

 

Do you have ears made of cloth, Pix?

Who said anything about banning sock accounts, or those who use them?

Not me. Quite the opposite.

Let me say it again, because you appear to not understand the use of very plain and simple English.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with sock accounts, provided that they are not used to target individual posters, or as a cover for complete and utter cowards to post material that the craven coward knows will get him banned.

We all know that The Village Bike was a sock account, and whilst it has been (quite rightly) closed, the person behind it hasn't been banned. I (and several others) believe that the person behind that sock should be banned, not because he had the temerity to use a sock, but because he used the sock in a cowardly fashion to break the rules and to cross a line.

Please confirm that you understand that, Pix.

 

That's okay. I'm not asking, or even expecting you to divulge it on this open forum.

You can PM the details to brb.

 

I've done **** all mate other than try and rescue this **** storm, and I'm guessing everyone knows that

 

667 #hypocrite

 

How am I a hypocrite, VB?

 

Worry not! I reported Jay tab this morning.