The President Speaks

Football and football message boards are nothing in comparison to matters of life or death. We all know it and really don't need to be reminded it of it. Greenjock has his own way with words but I agree with the sentiment. Any thread can be brought to a grinding halt by merely mentioning real suffering. I lost my mum at a relatively early age two years ago to a brain tumour after years of illness and many ops and chemotherapy. Her death left my dad depressed and suicidal. So I certainly know the place of internet feuding in the grand scheme of things.

Cerbera wrote:

I think the point was, in real life there are far far more important things than internet wars.

My sister in law is fighting a particularly virulent form of cancer at the moment. I doubt any one of her immediate family have any aspirations to be on the X Factor at any time, they just want Fiona to get better.

So, yes I find your post insulting and flippant and demeaning to anyone fighting cancer.

You are very very quick to jump up and down and protest to anyone who will listen/read about how abused you have been on the internet/by phone/by email yet when someone actually puts things into perspective, you are quick to ridicule. Shame.

And my point is the bloke who made the post didn't even know the woman ffs.

It's like saying oh poor wossisface from eastenders is going through hell and you're all fighting about a football forum, or trying to make people contrite by mentioning the people who have died in the storm in the States.

Sorry Cerbs but you're out of order on this.

Luckily I don't have someone battling cancer in my family, but if I did I wouldn't be logged into fuckin Pasoti that's for sure, or ATD.

I could say there are starving children un the world and nikkks accelerating the staff payments! Get all righteous about it like Tony Hooper, but I'm not a cnut like him so I don't. Ok?

Greenjock wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

I think the point was, in real life there are far far more important things than internet wars.

My sister in law is fighting a particularly virulent form of cancer at the moment. I doubt any one of her immediate family have any aspirations to be on the X Factor at any time, they just want Fiona to get better.

So, yes I find your post insulting and flippant and demeaning to anyone fighting cancer.

You are very very quick to jump up and down and protest to anyone who will listen/read about how abused you have been on the internet/by phone/by email yet when someone actually puts things into perspective, you are quick to ridicule. Shame.

And my point is the bloke who made the post didn't even know the woman ffs.

It's like saying oh poor wossisface from eastenders is going through hell and you're all fighting about a football forum, or trying to make people contrite by mentioning the people who have died in the storm in the States.

Sorry Cerbs but you're out of order on this.

Luckily I don't have someone battling cancer in my family, but if I did I wouldn't be logged into fuckin Pasoti that's for sure, or ATD.

I could say there are starving children un the world and nikkks accelerating the staff payments! Get all righteous about it like Tony Hooper, but I'm not a cnut like him so I don't. Ok?

Who are you a similar cnut to?

Cerbera wrote:

I think the point was, in real life there are far far more important things than internet wars.

My sister in law is fighting a particularly virulent form of cancer at the moment. I doubt any one of her immediate family have any aspirations to be on the X Factor at any time, they just want Fiona to get better.

So, yes I find your post insulting and flippant and demeaning to anyone fighting cancer.

You are very very quick to jump up and down and protest to anyone who will listen/read about how abused you have been on the internet/by phone/by email yet when someone actually puts things into perspective, you are quick to ridicule. Shame.

Here Here .

I'm a unique cnut

Greenjock wrote:

I'm a unique cnut

Oh gawd .

No Jock, I'm far from out of order. Your comment was crass and unwelcome.

I'd go to a meeting if I thought it would achieve anything, but sadly I'm not convinced that it would.

First, as Knecht and Czar have pointed out, most of this is about individuals with deep-seated grievances, and about other individuals who've supported those people, through friendship, outrage or both.

In the REAL world (work, shopping, that sort of thing) we raise grievances with the people who, we feel, did us wrong, or with their boss. And then, if we're still not happy, we can take it further - to the top of management, or the courts, for instance.

So how's that approach likely to work here? Well it can't, and for more than one reason.

First, the perpetrators in these grievances have done everything possible to cover their tracks. Posts, threads and two whole websites have been deleted (except some people have got screenshots); new tweets have been made to 'correct any misunderstanding' caused by the original tweets; emails, texts and phone calls denied (except people have kept them and have got phone records); and when all else fails new rumours, slurs and worse have been perpetrated - sometimes at great effort and expense - against the individual(s) with the grievances.

Second, the perpetrators in these grievances have got the ear of people in authority who, up to now, have supported them. This in turn has given them greater credence in the eyes of those not directly involved and those two things together have given them greater confidence to carry on and intensify their odious behaviour.

Third, in REAL life pursuing a grievance means pursuing some kind of recompense, and this - as JonB proposes - means some kind of compromise. When we complain that a hotel room wasn't up to scratch, what we really want is that night of our lives back again, to be spent in a nice room. What we get, as a compromise, is our money back. But these grievances aren't like that: how can you recompense somebody whose family was under threat? By telling him the threats weren't ever going to be followed through? Big deal: he still went through all the worry and stress.

And fourth, compromise often means both sides accepting they were, to some extent, in the wrong. But in these cases, the only time the aggrieved parties might have been in the wrong is after they became aggrieved. In other words, the only thing they'd done before the incidents happened was to disagree with somebody, or to say something the perpetrator disagreed with. It's not a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other: when people are attacked they respond, and the attacks all came from the same direction.

So if a meeting took place, and if everybody with a grievance got to have their say, and if all the perpetrators gave their side of it, and if an independent person or two arbitrated, what might happen as a result? The people with the grievances might get an apology? Given what's gone on over the last year or more, it's doubtful anybody would believe that was genuine. The perpetrators might promise never to do it again? Ditto.

The only way any of this can even be partly sorted out is if the real decision makers at the club sit up and take serious notice, recognise that the club itself is being affected by all of this, and dissociate themselves, completely and for ever, from the perpetrators. What meeting's going to make that happen?

I rest my case.

(With apologies for repeating myself a bit. I'm aware there might be new readers who perhaps haven't read the many previous posts by me and others which make exactly the same points.)

I was going to go mad but then I remembered the holocaust and thought life's too short.

Greenjock wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

I think the point was, in real life there are far far more important things than internet wars.

My sister in law is fighting a particularly virulent form of cancer at the moment. I doubt any one of her immediate family have any aspirations to be on the X Factor at any time, they just want Fiona to get better.

So, yes I find your post insulting and flippant and demeaning to anyone fighting cancer.

You are very very quick to jump up and down and protest to anyone who will listen/read about how abused you have been on the internet/by phone/by email yet when someone actually puts things into perspective, you are quick to ridicule. Shame.

And my point is the bloke who made the post didn't even know the woman ffs.

It's like saying oh poor wossisface from eastenders is going through hell and you're all fighting about a football forum, or trying to make people contrite by mentioning the people who have died in the storm in the States.

Sorry Cerbs but you're out of order on this.

Luckily I don't have someone battling cancer in my family, but if I did I wouldn't be logged into fuckin Pasoti that's for sure, or ATD.


oI could say there are starving children un the world and nikkks accelerating the staff payments! Get all righteous about it like Tony Hooper, but I'm not a cnut like him so I don't. Ok?

I agree with GJ, People illness should not be brought in to a football forum site,
I am sorry for their lost. My self I have been fighting the big C for over ten years which I am grateful to still be here. lost a brother age 51 this year and a niece age 20 a couple of years ago, that said this is a football forum site not a Bereavement forum.

Tgwu wrote:

Greenjock wrote:

Cerbera wrote:

I think the point was, in real life there are far far more important things than internet wars.

My sister in law is fighting a particularly virulent form of cancer at the moment. I doubt any one of her immediate family have any aspirations to be on the X Factor at any time, they just want Fiona to get better.

So, yes I find your post insulting and flippant and demeaning to anyone fighting cancer.

You are very very quick to jump up and down and protest to anyone who will listen/read about how abused you have been on the internet/by phone/by email yet when someone actually puts things into perspective, you are quick to ridicule. Shame.

And my point is the bloke who made the post didn't even know the woman ffs.

It's like saying oh poor wossisface from eastenders is going through hell and you're all fighting about a football forum, or trying to make people contrite by mentioning the people who have died in the storm in the States.

Sorry Cerbs but you're out of order on this.

Luckily I don't have someone battling cancer in my family, but if I did I wouldn't be logged into fuckin Pasoti that's for sure, or ATD.


oI could say there are starving children un the world and nikkks accelerating the staff payments! Get all righteous about it like Tony Hooper, but I'm not a cnut like him so I don't. Ok?

I agree with GJ, People illness should not be brought in to a football forum site,
I am sorry for their lost. My self I have been fighting the big C for over ten years which I am grateful to still be here. lost a brother age 51 this year and a niece age 20 a couple of years ago, that said this is a football forum site not a Bereavement forum.

Who said it was . Someone tried to put this petty squabble into context .

But it's not context at all GG! Everybody has sadness in their lives, and the world is mostly horrible. We're (nearly) all responsible adults who recognise and deal with that.

But when people on a football forum say 'let's get this in context', what they really mean is 'I'm finding this thread a bit difficult/boring/uncomfortable, so rather than deal with the points in it I'm going to make everybody feel bad about posting on it'.

A bit like 'what did you do in the war', actually.

I think anyone who needs reminding to put things into perspective or context have a real problem. Fortunately I don't think most people do and find it condescending when someone does.

Peggy wrote:

But it's not context at all GG! Everybody has sadness in their lives, and the world is mostly horrible. We're (nearly) all responsible adults who recognise and deal with that.

But when people on a football forum say 'let's get this in context', what they really mean is 'I'm finding this thread a bit difficult/boring/uncomfortable, so rather than deal with the points in it I'm going to make everybody feel bad about posting on it'.

A bit like 'what did you do in the war', actually.

No . What the poster said is in othere words " this isn't for me " (the poster) indicating he found it trivial and an event had made him realise how trivial it was . They preferred fun and going down the pub and having a laugh not being a saddo like me . Anyway I'm just banging my head against a brick wall . Their comments will not stop the discussion because it will just go on and on . I've tried to be reasonable but whats the point ?

Peggy wrote:

I'd go to a meeting if I thought it would achieve anything, but sadly I'm not convinced that it would.

First, as Knecht and Czar have pointed out, most of this is about individuals with deep-seated grievances, and about other individuals who've supported those people, through friendship, outrage or both.

In the REAL world (work, shopping, that sort of thing) we raise grievances with the people who, we feel, did us wrong, or with their boss. And then, if we're still not happy, we can take it further - to the top of management, or the courts, for instance.

So how's that approach likely to work here? Well it can't, and for more than one reason.

First, the perpetrators in these grievances have done everything possible to cover their tracks. Posts, threads and two whole websites have been deleted (except some people have got screenshots); new tweets have been made to 'correct any misunderstanding' caused by the original tweets; emails, texts and phone calls denied (except people have kept them and have got phone records); and when all else fails new rumours, slurs and worse have been perpetrated - sometimes at great effort and expense - against the individual(s) with the grievances.

Second, the perpetrators in these grievances have got the ear of people in authority who, up to now, have supported them. This in turn has given them greater credence in the eyes of those not directly involved and those two things together have given them greater confidence to carry on and intensify their odious behaviour.

Third, in REAL life pursuing a grievance means pursuing some kind of recompense, and this - as JonB proposes - means some kind of compromise. When we complain that a hotel room wasn't up to scratch, what we really want is that night of our lives back again, to be spent in a nice room. What we get, as a compromise, is our money back. But these grievances aren't like that: how can you recompense somebody whose family was under threat? By telling him the threats weren't ever going to be followed through? Big deal: he still went through all the worry and stress.

And fourth, compromise often means both sides accepting they were, to some extent, in the wrong. But in these cases, the only time the aggrieved parties might have been in the wrong is after they became aggrieved. In other words, the only thing they'd done before the incidents happened was to disagree with somebody, or to say something the perpetrator disagreed with. It's not a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other: when people are attacked they respond, and the attacks all came from the same direction.

So if a meeting took place, and if everybody with a grievance got to have their say, and if all the perpetrators gave their side of it, and if an independent person or two arbitrated, what might happen as a result? The people with the grievances might get an apology? Given what's gone on over the last year or more, it's doubtful anybody would believe that was genuine. The perpetrators might promise never to do it again? Ditto.

The only way any of this can even be partly sorted out is if the real decision makers at the club sit up and take serious notice, recognise that the club itself is being affected by all of this, and dissociate themselves, completely and for ever, from the perpetrators. What meeting's going to make that happen?

I rest my case.

(With apologies for repeating myself a bit. I'm aware there might be new readers who perhaps haven't read the many previous posts by me and others which make exactly the same points.)

Case proven - sentencing will be reserved for further psychiatric reports and to ascertain whether the perpetrators have slightly more than the ear of those in authority.

Greenjock wrote:

I was going to go mad but then I remembered the holocaust and thought life's too short.

I'm with you Jock. 90% (maybe more) of Pasoti and ATD members could tell a story of how a friend or family member is ill or has died. It's neither here nor there and does not solve any of the issues.

Anyone going to quote echobeach ?

greengenes wrote:

Anyone going to quote echobeach ?

Far away in time?

I have previously voiced opinion regarding the war of words constantly stoked on both sides of this as being petty and uncalled for. I have been told I know nothing of the previous goings on, which I don't, and it is basically justified. I don't post on pasoti but there clearly are people who do who want to continue this war between sites by their actions. The truth is that a lot of members of both sites aren't interested anymore. You only have to look at posts on this site where the usual people contribute in the war of words etc. and the majority who don't. The same applies to pasoti where only a few jump in on each occasion but most don't bother.

I have to wonder if the people concerned actually want this to continue. If the answer to that is yes then I then wonder if without it they would have very little to actually say on a football forum and might disappear into the background rather than being at the front. Do they all have one thing in common which is to appear important. Their postings often are the same old words trotted out over and over again. I say both sites because I think it is the same on both to some degree.

There is history of that there can be no doubt. Not very pleasant history at that but the stakes and games are upped each time and are now getting beyond what could be considered normal. Hacking, threats, mysterious posters appearing on one side and on the other the constant watching for threads and posts to be ridiculed with insult and derrision no matter what the subject on the other. The anti continues to be increased on a weekly basis. Perhaps each site could have an anti the other one section so they can continue their own war where others don't have to bother to enter. Stop all the silly games which impact on the rest and just have a slanging match together in one place. As long as they don't want to halt this then there is no chance in hell it ever will stop.

Czarcasm wrote:

There are far too many people with differing opinions and deep-rooted grievances for any meeting between a few fellas to do anything other than scratch the surface.

They could sign some sort of Non-Aggression Pact. They could replicate the Treaty of Versailles. But if there were an attempt to sensor or silence all others, the backlash would be quite formidible, I'd wager.

That sums up the main bit of my earlier umpteen paragraph post far better than what I tried to write.

Peggy wrote:

But it's not context at all GG! Everybody has sadness in their lives, and the world is mostly horrible. We're (nearly) all responsible adults who recognise and deal with that.

But when people on a football forum say 'let's get this in context', what they really mean is 'I'm finding this thread a bit difficult/boring/uncomfortable, so rather than deal with the points in it I'm going to make everybody feel bad about posting on it'.

A bit like 'what did you do in the war', actually.

Will I have to watch out now that the puppets know I have a illness, will I receive a white feather from the cowards

On Webb's pasoti thread, Argyle777 has posted-

Quote :

House of cards about to crumble...

I wonder if this is related to Newell's withdrawal from pasoti?

I'm not going to argue with you Cerbs. I have every sympathy for people going through a hard time whatever it is. I'm going through a tough time at home at the moment with a family issue, but I wouldn't post about it to try and stop people having their say on something totally unrelated.

Peggy and Andy know what it is through talking ad friends privately.

If it were ok to bring things like that into every discussion you would have a thread about a poor referee not giving a penalty which got heated being stopped in it's tracks by someone saying let's put this into perspective, he isn't Adolf Hitler.

There's a time and a place that's all, and randomly mentioning someone you don't even know dying in my eyes is just weird.

I agree with Peggy's post. For mediation there has to be an outcome. In this case too many people want something done about people who use another forum. This is mainly as a result of being banned from using that forum, or for being poorly treated by that forum so we no longer use it.

Pasoti can say it's nothing to do with ATD what we do on here.

That's true of course, but when posters on Pasoti have carried out stuff like spying on ATD posters while also being friendly and matey on here, then that's out of order. It becomes other people's business as well when that person applies for a post at the club both sites support.

So ATD posters could say they want Tony Hooper kicked off the PASB, but he isn't going to agree ti that is he?

Just like Ian Newell isn't going to hand back his car park pass and any other perks he gets, for the shit he's been involved in.

The Pasoti mods who took part in or helped cover up the trust bashing accounts can't be made to resign as mods because ATD don't like what they have done.

Doesn't mean that people can't have an opinion on their actions.

Now if these accusations about Peter Jones or Chris Webb are true then it would in my eyes amount to bringing the club into disrepute which there is a definite outcome that ought to come about. That's almost certainly why they wouldn't be admitting anything in a hurry.

I don't know if there is any legislation for a vote on the PASB board to see if the other board members could use to say they wanted Hooper off the board for his actions, or Lee Jameson come to that for his part in deepthroat, but I doubt there is.

I guess I could take Mike Newells threatening emails to the police, or I could say let's arrange to meet in q quiet spot and sort it out like Irish travellers. Doesn't bother me in the slightest but what then? What if I beat the crap put of him? Would the Newells leave me alone forever? Or if he battered me would I let it drop then forever?

The greenman stuff is a biggie for me, but again even if someone comes forward what then?

Or if someone at Argyle admits why Peggy was suddenly taken off? I doubt Peggy would write the column again if she was begged. I know I wouldn't, but it doesn't stop us wanting answers and being able to refer to it again.

I was called a known racist by two Pasoti mods. I could say I want them to apologise in the Herald, on Pasoti and on here, then they could ask the same as me for some of my comments. It's an endless circle.

Some things could be cleared up I suppose, but what if any Pasoti mods agreed to stand down, then in a few weeks a new mod appears who seems to have a familiar posting style?

Then there could ne requests to tone down posts on here. I would probably be the number one poster requested to be censored and I wouldn't be happy. I could try but I do tend to speak my mind and I'm not sure I would want to be something I'm not.

I've probably pissed Cerbs off now, but that's how I feel about the matter. You could say don't read Pasoti then if the post offende me. It doesn't offend me, I just found it weird and wanted to comment on it.

It doesn't mean I don't have compassion for cancer sufferers, far from it, but my sympathies get tempered when the plight is used in the wrong context, such as to gain the sympathy vote on x factor, which I gather happens on a weekly basis.

Not one act has had a lovely happy tragedy free life from what I hear and read.

I think I'll leave it there and hope I'vemade my point without being too harsh.

greengenes wrote:

Anyone going to quote echobeach ?

The major difference is it is echobeach's own wife going through a horrid time, can you not see the difference gg? Iwould imagine most on here honestly wish her well.