I seem to remember you all thinking we had a chance before the match in December and not believing me about how bad we are...
You were and are terrible, but we've got much worse since December. We somehow managed to lose at home to Leicester, who've failed to score for months. please log in to view this image
True although until Wednesday (which was our best performance of the season) we'd gotten worse as everyone had basically chucked it in. We tend to start games okay but as soon as a goal in heads drop and we give up. You could say that we might build on that but we've not done so on our rare decent performances so far and we're missing a couple of players for Sunday too. It also says a lot that we're comfortably a worse team than Leicester!
AFAIK, "The Keystone cops" is now out of copyright. Which means neither team can be sued for the collective performance that will be served up on sunday.
Is that really all that important? I'm not really arsed if Spurf is impartial or not just as long as he doesn't abuse his mod powers which from what i have seen he has not.
Speaking the truth to authority is never a waste of time or effort. Having been married to a senior police officer of over 30 years service, I know whereof I speak. When those making the rules accuse others of having agendas, because they do not share their views, it's time to speak up...especially when they are affronted at being called out on it. The site is for everybody's opinion and debate. Once one starts to apply rules differently according to one's views and not apply those rules to yourself, it's not the site that it should be. Some principles need to be stood up for. I like Spurf, but his application to his role needs to be applied without favour.
It appears that you do not understand the role of a mod on this board. A mod is not here to moderate your opinion or any opinions. All posters can express their opinions, it's what we are here for. Each board on this forum has it's own mods and each boards posters decide how they want their board moderated. On the Spurs board we decided a long time ago that we would not allow personal insults or attacks. This has clearly worked because we have a successful board with many posters. You can compare that to other boards on this forum and see what what happens when personal attacks go unchecked. In this particular instance the problem seems to have arisen because I said, quote: "I am just watching the game WITHOUT an agenda" That of course suggests that others have an agenda and that I stick to. I am referring to the fact that many fans want Ange out. That is an agenda. I described the first half as a decent game. Other posters obviously thought I had lost it. I had described what I meant to be in the context of playing Chelsea, and that's why my reply to another poster was to think about what they had said to me, when they asked me if I still thought it was a decent game in the light of the second half. My reply of: "Think about what you just said" clearly caused annoyance, and the other poster withdrew from the conversation. There is no moderation issue there. That's me annoying people with my views and that has NOTHING to do with being a mod. There is no moderation, nobodys views are being challenged on that basis and nobodys views are being moderated. I am subject to the same rules as every other poster and my views carry no more weight than anybody else.
No, I don't think I do misunderstand. When you claimed that I was being personal and in your previous words, "playing the man , not the ball", you crossed the line. You can't be a moderator, quote the rules to someone, having ignored them yourself, fail to acknowledge that fact and expect not to be called on it... ...the fact that you are doing exactly that and seem unable to grasp that, shows why you should be looking at your actions in this and your increasing unsuitability to the role Have a think about it...
You said : "If you don't agree with Spurf, you have 'an agenda'." That is a personal attack. That is trying to undermine my views not on the basis of what I say but on the basis of some perceived slight. If that had been directed at another poster I would have moderated it.
I am applying what you said to someone else with views contrary to yours'. Someone says something you don't agree with. You say that you don't agree because you don't have an agenda...imying they do. When I say that disagreeing with you will lead to allegations of having an agenda, you cry foul? Really? Just admit you shouldn't have said it. People have opinions on here. Nobody else is seeing agendas...just you.
You have an agenda That is my view. Here quite clearly is that you do not like my view, which is fair enough. What is not is trying to conflate that with being a moderator.
And there we have it. I have views, which I freely express. The fact that you think they amount to an agenda is what this is all about, mate.
WE have 3 mods on this board, the other two mods are already looking at this situation and they will decide what action, (if any) to take.
You are perfectly able to express those views and I am able to express an opinion on those views, and in my opinion if you continue to repeat the same view over and over it becomes an agenda. It's not really a big deal it just means that IMO you and others comments on a game are coloured by that agenda. That is called an opinion and I maintain does not fall foul of our rules. Others will decide.
Looking back through all the exchanges it seems to be the word 'Agenda' that is causing the problem. I came back at you (as a poster) because you implied that I thought that anybody who disagreed with me had an agenda. That is a misrepresentation of my views. When I use Agenda with respect to you I mean that you have said many times your view on Levy, Ange and ENIC. that's a list or otherwise known as an agenda. Same word two different contexts.
So why call me out on being personal when I repeated what you'd already said to someone else? It's "do what I say, not what I do." As another poster I'd rightly tell you to "**** off". As a moderater, that's not enough. You erased my post. Why was that, if you're able to say it to me now? You're tying yourself in knots to avoid addressing your mistake (probably) or loss of self-awareness. Admit that you were wrong, I'll do it when I am, or take time out to think about your double standards and why you're doing this.
