I just got banned from posting on the Into the Valley Forum. I could not understand why, as I do not use foul language or personally abuse posters, and this on a forum where one of the moderators not only does both frequently but actually threatened physical assault on one old-aged poster he knows personally at matches. True, I was at odds with most of their posters' optimistic assessment of the club at present, but I wouldn't think that merits banning. I don't get banned on here for being the perpetual Jonah. And the ironic thing is that, presumably after a few woeful performances in pre-season friendlies, which hardly influenced my thinking, there has been a sea-change on ITVF with many posters belatedly coming round to my point of view. Today, I found out why I had been banned. I accidentally called a moderator a "w**ker". It happened like this. He posted two comments on the Southend match. The first at half-time said that Southend had more than matched Charlton in the first half. The second at the end said that Charlton had dominated throughout the match. To draw attention to this sloppy posting I simply quoted both comments and added "???" (three question marks). I saw that once "sent" the question marks changed into a smiley but I was happy with that as making the post more "friendly". What I only found out today is that what, with my poor eyesight, I saw as a smiley is (apparently) a "happy w**ker" icon. There is no way I would have wanted to personally insult that poster, who is totally inoffensive and whom we had just established in a friendly exchange far exceeds my lengthy sentence as a Charlton supporter. I know that some here are members of that board, so I would be grateful if someone could convey to "inkblot" there my apologies for this accident and assure him of my respect. Incidentally, if they (rightly) don't want anyone called a "w**ker", why do they include that smiley in the selection? We don't have one. Just as well as many might be tempted to use it. But it gets funnier that that. Right after I first joined I found inexplicable hostility to my posts, with some calling for my banning for no reason at all. I had joined immediately after they had banned a poster called "Royston Vaisey" and there was an immediate assumption that I was he returning under a new handle. Apparently he does that frequently. (We have a couple like that on a non-football board where I post and they are both very disturbed people in real life). I think the moderators soon sussed out from my IP address that I was not Royston Vaisey. As I am currently posting from the Caribbean that should not have been rocket science. But by then the prejudice against me by the rank and file had already taken root so when the "w**ker" accident occurred I was doomed. What I now learn is that "RV" is our own Vol. Being mistaken for him is enough to make me lose the will to live.
yeah, but reams is a w*nker. you were factually correct so i wouldnt let it bother you. i signed up on there, i dont know if the account is still active, but any view i gave was jumped on by "his dogs". i wasnt insulted, more bored. imagine sitting in a room full of people who all had the exact same opinion.
It wasn't Reams I accidentally offended, it was "inkblot" who seems totally inoffensive. It wasn't being banned that bothered me, it was being mistaken for Vol. I may have lost all street-cred with my Kosovan and Somali friends.
I don't post on ITTV, but inkblot's match thread updates seem to consist of copying tweets from the two clubs involved. At least that's what he did on Saturday. I think what might have happened is that he posted one tweet from Southend's official feed, which would unsurprisingly be biased in Southend's favour, and one from Charlton's official feed, biased the other way. Both of those tweets can be seen in the clubs' twitter feeds. That was what you accidentally replied 'w*nker' to.
I take it you were 'Wolfgang' then, Eddie ? I have come off ITTV following that thread. I am sick to death of one particular poster - dick plumb - making false accusations and snide remarks about me, your thread being a 'typical' example. Funny I should mention typical, because didn't DP going running off crying a while back from here, alleging that he was being bullied ? Unfortunately Cowardly Plumb has a long and distinguished record of cyber abuse - as a quick search on Charlton Life will demonstrate. Way back in 2009 he was calling me a "p---k" etc. I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology from either Reams or Plumb.
Vol you are a prick, I am a proud knobhead as well. I still post on ITTV as I love to be ignored, unless you tow the party line you are insignificant. Many of their posters wait for Reams to have an opinion so they can copy it or simply change theirs after his pronouncement.
I heard about your post on here, so I have joined Not606 to reply that I personally did not take offence at your post on ITTV, as I think you made a genuine mistake, in that I took two separate posts, one from the Southend website and one from the CAFC website. Both are biased in their outlook, so I was giving everyone the opportunity to make their own choice. There is no bad feelings from me I assure you, I let things like that go over my head, life is really too short to get angry at peoples posts on any forum. I have this morning sent Reams a PM asking him to unban you on ITTV and I sincerely hope you will return and continue posting. Regards Inkblot.
The Charlton Forums are an excellent example of the integrated study of social individual and group study, of human behaviour for those that follow a common liking. I liken it to the Charlton Heston Story in Planet of the Apes. On day 1 of filming all the extras were given, costumes, weapons etc and told to wait for the director to do his thang. All the extras banded together in their respective costumes, all of course total strangers to each other, and unrecognisable under their masks, those with chimpanzee costumes, hung out together, those with gorilla costumes and plastic guns, formed their own groups and the Orang U Tangs who were (in the film) the superior brained ape, also hung out. On day 12 it got to the stage where the chimps were being bullied in the canteen by the gorillas, and the O U T's refused to eat with the gorillas because they found them objectionable, the casting director swapped the extras costumes around, and after a few days the same cliques formed, with the chimps banding together, staying away from the gorillas and the OUTs finding botyh to be totally objectionable and oafish proving in a completely unintended fashion, that humans will adopt the persona of whatever mask they are asked to wear. I liken Charlton Life to a troupe of chimpanzees, mostly harmless and timid, with the odd alpha chimp (5 in this case) adopting undemocratic leadership responsibilities through Trusts, Museums, G21's selling Cafc tat , and playing sympathy games by relying on outdated historical achievements for which they played minor roles. They will all try and have their say and outdo each other in subtle and discreet ways. They have some excellent contributors however, these are often shouted down by the elders chimps, who are enraged that someone outside the inner circle can post a thought that they didn't think off, then the contributions are sunk and then re-posted again slightly altered by the elder chimps as their own thoughts and ideas for which the chimps all feel smugly satisfied. The gorillas are ITTV. Mostly thick and the Danny Dyer plastic type. They boast about imaginary fighting and shagging and are led by a male dominant gorilla and his mate. They live in fear of the dreaded 'quick walk round the corner' should any of their members suggest a 4-4-2 formation against Brentford when clearly the leader has read in MATCH magazine that the Christmas tree formation is the way forward. All thoughts of rebellion and free thinking are quickly extinguished with threats of violence, once of course that member is vetted carefully on age, weight, and his likelihood of him being the sort that might just go up and say it to the leaders face. We of course are the orang u tangs, witty, clever and have a desire to converse. The debates are light-hearted but challenging and as long as they agree with me, the threat of personal abuse is low. The OUTs congress allow its followers to do missionary work with the chimps and the gorillas. Most of the time this work is useless and the lack of depth and understanding on these boards is astonishingly low. I am proud to be an OUT.
Thank you inkblot, you are a gentleman. My apology was for accidentally using an offensive "smiley". Had I used it deliberately I would have deserved a banning. My comment on your two posts still stands. If someone posts without quoting the source they should expect it to be taken as their own comments. However, that is a very minor criticism indeed. Our friend Capt Blackaddick frequently posts updates on matches using unattributed quotes from the club twitter site, but since we are used to that and it is obvious what is going on it is acceptable and helpful. It was kind of you to do that and to take the trouble to register here to inform me. If you stay and post from time to time some good will have come out of it. I find that I can still read posts on ITTV and I happy to leave it at that for the time being. We have a couple of difficult regular posters here and we have the odd flamewar, but generally I find the responses here more varied, mature and even-tempered than on the other board. Reams is unacceptably irascible and vindictive to be a moderator, whose main virtue should be "moderation". Confusing me with Royston Vaisey was amusing. I am usually at the opposite end of the spectrum from him on most things. But these three boards are like the war in Syria/Iraq. Lots of different cliques with their own agenda sometimes pursued with religious fervour. I, for example, still worship at the shrine of the blessed Saint Christopher, and await his second (fifth?) coming to save us. And like the Middle East war, we sometimes find ourselves aligned with strange allies or opposing those with whom we previously agreed.
Brilliant. I post a fair amount on Charlton Life at the moment and I think it's a decent forum. Admittedly it's a bit petty. I've noticed people definitely crave LOLs and will jump at any mistake someone makes in a post. That's just forums for you though, for the most part all decent people. Agree with you on ITTV, very cringey forum. A bunch of people that seem to ask for Reams opinion on everything. And then another load of attention seekers. I'm all for discussion on a forum but some people are cringe worthy on there. I once made a thread about a potential new song and some guy accused me of 'thread hijacking' why would I do that? The thing I find quite sad is that I'm 23 and most posters seem to be well into their 50s and 60s yet are squabbling about who knows what first and if they do get something right they brag. Kinda weird. I'll post on CL as I think there's a decent balance and I'll poke up on here too now. ITTV is just not for me though. People like that Ackres or whatever he's called and all the Reams arse kissers just put me off entirely.
It never occurred to me that I probably should say where I get stuff from... oops Just for the record, when I post the team line-ups I get them from the clubs' twitter feeds. Once the match starts I rely on the commentary on CAFCPlayer, which I summarise (unless we're on TV - LOL - in which case I describe what I see). Usually it's my own words, but sometimes I use the description from the commentators. Occasionally I miss something through lack of concentration, and might then rely on either team's twitter feed to post about an incident.
Guys chill start of a new season lets get behind cafc and the team u are all welcome on my site which is seperate to the covered end fan zone jonathan ackworth
Long time no speak, they saw the light and let you back on then? Why won't your section of ittv let me see posts, do I have to join up?
The Good Lord always welcomes a repenting sinner This site will do for me from now on, particularly as most of the fans who have seen through the con man Duchatelet post on here. ITTV is, sadly, now catering for people who appear to be interested in Moldovan full backs and Estonian wingers. In the same way that CL used to be dominated by a handful including Ben Hayes who were desperate to brown nose Murray, it seems that ITTV is now trying to pull off the same trick with RD.
