Can you believe the audacity of some people? Using the word 'spooks' in a thread about ghosts. The person who used it must be a racist according to the gospel of SuperC. Nevermind the fact that this was not highlighted at the time, and that no warning or banning order was placed upon the culprit. Why is that? Could it be because the person was innocently commenting about the number of ghosts (spooks) in their hometown - which is synonymous for being a place where condemned men and women went to ponder their ends, prior to execution. Perhaps a few people do not know that fact. But if they had asked the culprit to explain his comment, at the time, he would have mentioned that moot point. So why did they accuse the person of such outlandish behaviour? Is it because a thread about racism appeared and they were finding it hard to get a foothold in a discussion with the accused? Did they attempt to discredit the person because it was an easy insult to make? Would their accusation stand up in court? Not likely. So what will the powers-that-be do about this? Will they allow this slur to pass without reproach? Will they defend the person who has been unfairly labelled? Watch this space...
Scandal: certain posters manage to get through passionate heated debate without resorting to personal insults
I haven't read all of the posts today; I've skimmed a fair few - but in all honesty as much as I like a good political debate they never seem to end well on here. So I keep out of it. But I can see the misunderstanding - 'spooks' can mean people of African descent, so in context you can see why this has arose. I'm still largely sitting on the fence as I don't like to question people's beliefs and I don't know the facts; but I really see no need for it to get out of hand here. Although I did comment on the JA SuperInjunction situation with a bit of a joke about how I hoped it didn't end up all 'High Plains Drifter' - so far everyone has turned against each other so I'm half right...
TBH - I'm lost on this one and I'm not taking anyone's side. Where has all this turn of the 'spooks' discussion generated from to cause such heated feelings, link?
How can you bring up a comment about ghosts (dating back to September) during a thread on racism (in November)? Where is the misunderstanding? It is calculated contempt.
Before you get cute, put your detective hat on and find out when I was made mod and when that post was. You'll also see that in that thread I question your motive. You were speaking prior to that remark about your area and all the Somalians(I think) and speaking about it in a negative way. Then in a thread you largely hadn't been a part of, you pipe up with "there are lots of spooks in my area". Clever disguise. Funny when I questioned you then you didn't get this upset. Now I'm not going to speak for others, but I see undertones in some of what you have said. I also took offence when you bleated on about the Scottish and Irish in England. This is a football forum- I like the occasional off topic thread, but you seem to want to provoke controversy at times. Play a victim all you like, just please after this thread don't clutter it with more rubbish.
I suppose I would ask two questions... 1. Did you know there was a derogatory meaning to this word at the time of using it. 2. For what purpose was the use of the word used, within the context of the discussion at that exact point in time i.e. within the relevant timed comments, rather than the intended thread topic.
I didn't think I'd say it at first but you are turning out to be a very effective Moderator and I mean effective in a good way.
Did you at the time complain to AllHell? If you did, I was never made aware of it. You were obviously not that concerned at the time. You questioned the motive of the comment at the time, agreed, and I replied that I was unsure of what you meant. You never responded after that. You never followed up your questioning. Why not? Surely if you were so upset you would have made me aware of it - but you didn't. My comments about Somalians were made during a different thread. I was merely pointing to the problems that Ponders End faces due to the Somalian influx. Have you ever been to Ponders End? If so, you would concur with my comments. If not, please meet with me? Now you say that you are offended by my comments about Scottish and Irish people. So my bigotry is not just aimed at non-whites, is it? I have also criticised Travellers. You are saying that I want to provoke controversy. Controversy to you is a view that does not mirror your own. Most on here avoid certain threads if they feel it will upset or frustrate them. You stick your nose in and criticise anything that does not agree with your own credo. You wish to portray yourself as a paragon of virtue, a voice of reason - but in fact you are the most bigoted and condescending pillock on here. I think most would agree with that sentiment.
Don't presume you know what we think Ponders - you are the only one who thinks Super is a 'pillock'. Also, could you point out where Super has shown his supposed bigotry?
I certainly wouldn't and vehemently disagree, querying comments legitimately is not in anyway bigoted or condescending.
I will presume what I like, thank you. I said 'most', not all. Do you know the meaning of the word BIGOTRY? The complete intolerance of any opinion that differs from one's own. If I offer my opinion I will be accused of bigotry at a shot. Are differing opinions banned on this site? Anyway, it is clear that my presence is not wanted by the Overlords, so I shall bugger off. Just remember; no one could ever accuse me of not calling a spade a spade. Goodnight.
There is no evidence that most posters on here would call Super a 'pillock'. You have both put your point across equally forcefully - you've called him a 'pillock' and he's described what you've said as 'rubbish'. Either you're both bigots or, as I am inclined to believe, neither of you is. You have also both accused someone of being a bigot (Super) and been accused of being a bigot (blockmaddick in the blatter is not the problem thread). I do not think you can say differing opinions are banned at all, as nothing anyone has said has been removed. My own interpretation is that you feel victimised (although you may well disagree with that), which, given what I have just said, is not justified.
For an example of well-honed debate, check out Ryan's comment to me at 9.40pm on the 'red white black' thread. Absolute class.
I never said I didn't. He said I was like A2C - that is low, very low. Besides, he wants me to choke on a penis. Bit harsh. I suppose it shows the mentality of the kid.
My interpretation of that is that you felt you were above such name-calling. Hence my response, pointing out that you weren't. If I misinterpreted what you meant by that then I apologise, although I cannot see any other possible explanation for it.
I don't mind a bit of name calling, Captain B. If I am that offensive, why don't people just block me? If I upset SuperC with my 'spooks' comment in September, why did he not block me? I think because I debated him into oblivion, he used a low and desperate blow. Just my opinion.
i read the first and skipped the rest just replied in detail to ponders on the other thread cba makes a good point. super is a fantastic guy? look at his beautiful equity and fairness. love dont hate
