I wasn't involved in the other thread. My relatives are in their 70s. Going to bingo isn't really my idea of a good night out.
The fuss is about fair play and the right of our mods to police our board. Your views are yours and that is fair enough and I suspect quite a few agree with you about him. However there was a debate in which not one person said they were not prepared to give Bee a chance here so you would think that the powers that be would support a majority view - even though the site is not a democracy. I believe in freedom of expression for everyone - not just Watford supporters. You have often posted about how much of a benefactor Mick is - do you really know what it costs to run this site or are you just guessing from other sites like this? I am not at all interested in how much it costs Mick to be honest - it costs a lot to support a football team but we do it because we want to. Mick runs the site not to be philanthropic but presumably because he gets out of it more than he puts in - not necessarily in financial terms but pleasure etc. Good for him. I don't have to pay for twitter or Facebook nor for the Chess site and I would never pay anything to be on this chat forum. If Mick tried to charge I bet he would lose 99% of his posters so he has no choice really - he runs it for free or closes it. Also there are other sites like Ja606 still going and if he charged then many would just switch there. Anyway what does the cost of the site have to do with opinions on fair play, democracy and freedom of expression?
I say that we give him the old 606 treatment. If you dont like the thread, you can ignore it. If you dont like the person who posted it you can make use of the ignore button to never see their posts again.
Wasn't overly interested in anything he/she/it had to post so put him/her/it on my ignore list. Didn't realise that if others quote those on the list, their posts can be seen...
If you read my recent posts you will see that I made a foray onto the GC board to see where our trolling was coming from - on there I found the relevant thread and you had posted on it - not rocket science really. Still it is of little interest to anyone who posts here - but I would bet a lot of money that you are just WUMming - so happy fishing
OK - my last response - we do have roundabouts in Watford - but they have a magic roundabout in Hemel Hempstead
Got stuck in hemel Hempstead for hours on the way to Anfield in 1999. Got into the ground 20 minutes late and the steward tells us it's 1-0 "ah that's all right" I say " we'll have to make sure we get 2 back" "It's you who's 1-0 up you cheeky cockney *&^%" came the reply. Charming stewards - with a rubbish sense of geography...
His site = his rules. You may not like the rules, but they're there for a reason. Changing them when they feel like they don't suit you is even more undemocratic than any bans, etc...
But questioning them is very democratic -persuading people to rethink and make changes is very democratic - we cannot change the rules - only Mick can - and he may or may not listen and agree sometimes - is that not democratic and worth posting for? I would add that these rules are invisible to us as we were neither privy to making them nor even being able to see what rules exist unless they are in the public domain. As you say - his site his rules - no democracy there though. I am willing to play by his rules but only if I am allowed to question them when I feel like it. Do you not want the same rights?
You weren't questioning them though, you were claiming that the outcome/ban was unfair, and not repealing it for our board was even more unfair. I'm not going to argue this any longer, that idiot isn't worth the effort, I've clarified my position and I'm not going to waste any more energy on people like him, there are millions of them on the internet.
