Why is Scholesy banned?
- Thread starter Plan M
- Start date
- Status
Exactly. It would take one hell of a committed wum to go and watch United reserve games and form opinions on them.
He's never been to a United reserve match.
I don't see the connection. GB thinking he is or isn't a United supporter has no relation to the reason he was banned, the two aren't connected, and if GB is right or wrong, it still isn't affected.
It's not a case of showing you that people are wrong or right, we've banned someone, now an explanation has been given, which is more then you used to get. Following that explanation, you now want evidence of our reasoning? We don't have to give reasons for bannings Brad, it's an option, let alone trawl back and dig out posts to back our decisions up. We've said why he was banned, it's upto you to accept that or not, what we don't need is constant criticism about how we come to our decisions, given you don't know what we talk about, or how we deal with those posters in private. All I can do is really echo Noodles sentiments, and exactly like the Nani Nana thread where you did the same thing, then pretended it was a joke to save face, you have an axe to grind and can't let things go.
Would you? I don't know about infractions given to other posters, but from the behaviour of certain people I imagine that they are not receiving infractions when they personally abuse people, or post puerile, pathetic responses. Indeed people who do this often hold the position of moderator or administrator (or Presidente). If people were infracted when they made these comments, I suspect they would stop. You don't have to actually ban people, I'm sure people wouldn't continue to post in such a way if they knew that doing so would result in them receiving infractions and an automatic ban.
@ PhelansShorts, do you think Huddlestone is better than Carrick ?
If that in itself is a provocative statement, I dont know what is. Given Scholesy has never even bothered to post why. This is just one of the numerous examples of how he delibrately makes provocative posts to intice other posters which in turn makes people think if he's even a united supporter or not.
If that in itself is a provocative statement, I dont know what is. Given Scholesy has never even bothered to post why. This is just one of the numerous examples of how he delibrately makes provocative posts to intice other posters which in turn makes people think if he's even a united supporter or not.
Going off the last 2 seasons it is quite close, to the point I wouldn't be surprised by people thinking either way.
I'd have Huddlestone in my team over Carrick every day of the week, and I'm probably more biased against Spurs than most here.
It's hilarious that Brwned chose that thread as an example. Scholesy made a point in it, which some pretty mature posters agreed with and tried defending him, amongst a bunch of immature posters who just rush in with 'Modric' and a load of other tired old cliches.
I'm only halfway through reading it but amazed anyone would think that's a good example of what he's done wrong.
I'm only halfway through reading it but amazed anyone would think that's a good example of what he's done wrong.
So did Scholesy actually think Dong was going to make it? That was a clear windup
JW are you seriously accusing Scholsey of not being United?
seriously?
https://www.redcafe.net/f8/jaywalker-city-fan-posing-united-fan-317168/#post9095369
seriously?
https://www.redcafe.net/f8/jaywalker-city-fan-posing-united-fan-317168/#post9095369
feck me, is this what we're considering as WUM?
I disagree with him on Terry, but its not hard to imagine he actually thinks Terry is a good captain, but Capello made a pigs ear of the way he handled his reappointment. That's frankly almost mainstream opinion, if anything its my view thats off the norm
Right, now if you make that post, you would choose to back it up in some way, yes ? Or atleast try to, given I dont agree with it, I would expect you to do so. Precisely the point where Scholesy left off the debate.
A lot of people think The red chief is not a good poster on here but atleast he tries to have a debate which is why he's still on here and is not half as ridiculed as scholesy was.
but he watches them all, he can school alot of posters on the going ons of our reserves.
I'm not asking why he was banned Hectic, I'm asking what he's done to show he's such a WUM, as you seem to be convinced of. I hope there's more to it than has been posted so far, because its really thin stuff
And if you'd kindly stop trying to personalise this to me, I'd have thought it's pretty clear by now there's quite a number of posters who think this is a tad unfair on the lad. As... I say again... does the bloke who banned him
I never pretend I've made a joke to save face, I actually have no idea what you're on about there
You do realise he started the thread after viewing the player in the OP in the televised highlights of a single game?
That's why it's such a good example. A sweeping statement based on feck all evidence, without even a hint of being willing to expand upon or justify his opinion or acknowledge/counter the opinion of those who disagree. Textbook Scholesy.
this thread is better than counting sheep.
Yes, they're predictable and pointless.
I struggle to see how you think that it's fairly reasonable, though. If anyone else explicitly said that they are certain a player they've seen a 5 minute clip of will be playing for a top 4 club very soon, they'd get abused. Surely you can see that?
Posting something controversial and then not substantiating it, in any way, is an indication of being a troll.
I'd forgotten about that.Also I don't know if this is the best time to bring this up but I actually agree (sort of) with Scholesy's opinion on technique.
There, I said it.
Oh yeh, of course, and that's where Scholesy fell down. For reasons unknown to myself, he never backed a point he made up. The Chief is an excellent poster I think - talks a load of rubbish in my view a lot of the time, but as you say is more than willing to tell you why you're wrong.
TBF to the lad at least he admitted it, most threads are made without having seen that much.
A lot of the abuse that Scholesy got, you used to get yourself didnt you, why did you leave the forum a few years back
A lot of new posters can get abuse regardless of their opinion though - look at newtonheathdave - forced out because of getting dog's abuse in every thread when he talked absolute sense all the time.
Also I don't know if this is the best time to bring this up but I actually agree (sort of) with Scholesy's opinion on technique.
There, I said it.
WUM. Ban him.
Wait, are you serious ? Pity you in which case. And jesus boss, how bored are you ?
I just find it ironic that you're accusing Scholsey of not being a United fan, amazing but carry on kicking the man while he's down, with the worst evidence in the world.
i also got promoted because of a post about dong (words i never thought i´d type)
Banning someone because they get a lot of abuse is just wrong. It's like expelling a pupil from school because everyone's bullying them, it punishes the victim and it treats them like a child. Banning him because he's a WUM, that I can understand, although I'm not at all convinced that he is and it doesn't nothing to justify the personal abuse and puerile responses he gets. Claiming it's for his own good is just demeaning.
I am imagining JW kicking a scrawny British lad curled up in the fetal position since being banned from the caf.
I seriously hope posters never took his scouting reports seriously.
Why does he have to be either? He's more likely a harmless wally who's getting more attention than needed whether he's looked for it or not.
No one aside from Brwned wants him banned - everyone else, including a couple of the mods according to this thread - could just have got on with it. Who cares if he's got eccentric views on football? I couldn't give a crap, but I think he's been unfairly shafted here. He's been promoted to the position of village idiot, had taglines given him which drew attention to his slightly odd posts, mods calling him a 'cnut' and 'mad' repeatedly, and then banned. All seems a bit OTT to me...
kietotheworld is asking for a ban if you ask me.
Precisely my point, its not the outlandish views that completely take the fall here for Scholesy. You'll never see anyone asking for the chief to be banned. As much as any other poster think that he might be wrong, he atleasts believes enough in his theories to substantiate them.
Whereas when you post a provocative statement and feck off, most posters are bound to believe that you're on a WU and tbh its not a sole instance, its a regular occurence with Scholesy, so anyone is inclined to think that he is trolling or winding up, whatever the correct terminology is.
There's nothing wrong with that, he's a bit of a nutcase clearly but so what??
You've to be pretty sad to get affected by that.
It's the same thing. You wanted to know why he was banned - for being a WUM. Read below....
Hectic said:
The Nani Nana thread, where you had a drama meltdown, and then said you weren't taking it seriously, and laughed it off. That was to save face once all the negative responses to your rants came in.
Looked pretty serious to me Brad.
I didnt accuse him of anything nor have I ever asked for him to be banned.
See this is the part where you have to read and understand the post Boss, before you jump to conclusions. I just said that sometimes with some of the stuff he says its not totally a foregone conclusion for anyone to think that way. But go ahead, jump to conclusions.
Scholesy, if you are reading this, don't let this get you down, they are just jealous of you. You are the best poster on the Cafe, I can't sleep well without reading one of your post. Fair winds my bud.
Hmm....didn't realize it was a perma-ban for Scholesy.
Probably too harsh IMO.
Probably too harsh IMO.
I never left the forum.
And yes, I got plenty of abuse. And then I stopped being so controversial, and I stopped getting a load of abuse. Which is what Scholesy should've done if he wanted to get away from all of the negative attention.
Is there a point I'm missing here?
- Status