Another Soccer Banning

Mr. Presentable

Would this have been acceptable had it been the original quote?

Originally Posted by Xavi6
We nick a last minute winner, the other lot lose miserably and Keane is made a mockery of (how in the bejaysus was he not banned for life for the Haaland incident. Wanker.) It's a great Saturday!

GuanYin

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm sorry psi but I dont agree with the argument of context. You say there was no need to use the adjective to describe him. Well there is also no need to refer to someone as a scumbag over one tackle as in the Hunt case. This sentence...


....could have functioned the same without the word 'scumbag'. In fact it was an additional comment after the point was made. No need for it and it's name calling, same as calling Keane a wanker.

No need also for the word retard in the same sentence as the Arsenal keeper.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54339576&highlight=almunia%2C+tard#post54339576



That point could have been made without abusing Almunia.

And also I found this -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54427860&highlight=almunia%2C+tard#post54427860



Fair enough he has been ****e but where is the need to refer to him as a 'bastard'? Again the point could have been made without the name calling, just as you say mine could have been.

Name calling is name calling no matter what spin you put on it. To try and differentiate between the cases is opening a can of worms.

You said you had no problem with the rules, now you're saying you do.

You say you want leniency, when I explain what the leniency is, you say you don't agree.

You claim you read a post that made you think it was ok, when that very same post highlighted exactly why it wasn't.

You claim you should get light treatment because it wa sa first minor offence... it wasn't a first offence at all.

Xavi6, at this stage I think you're just going around in circles because you want to blame everyone but you for your actions. You claim us of inconsistency when you can't even stick to the one story.

I'll review the other posts... didn't see them when they were made, but now you bring them to our attention, we'll review and act.

See? No inconsistency, just a delay.

Xavi6

psi wrote: »

You said you had no problem with the rules, now you're saying you do.

I have a problem with how the rules are applied, not what they are.

psi wrote: »

You say you want leniency, when I explain what the leniency is, you say you don't agree.

Again I don't agree with your justification for banning me when other posts are equally as bad.

psi wrote: »

You claim you read a post that made you think it was ok, when that very same post highlighted exactly why it wasn't.

That post is the exact same as mine as I pointed out in my previous post.

psi wrote: »

You claim you should get light treatment because it wa sa first minor offence... it wasn't a first offence at all.

I'll repeat myself again. I have never hidden that I was banned a year and a half or so ago. I said it was my first offence since you claimed a more lenient approach. Your interpretation of leniency is instant banning rather than an infraction.

psi wrote: »

Xavi6, at this stage I think you're just going around in circles because you want to blame everyone but you for your actions. You claim us of inconsistency when you can't even stick to the one story.

I'm going in no circles. I'm simply stating my valid argument. You'd swear this thread was one sided. I feel it was harsh and so do other people. I've stuck to the one story - that you are inconsistent. You claim that the posts I have quoted are different from mine when they are in fact the exact same thing.

psi wrote: »

See? No inconsistency, just a delay.

If this thread hadn't been started those posts would have remained untouched. You say it like you actually bother to go back and read old posts. Sure you're the one who claimed that you can't be expected to keep up.

Xavi6

Proof I was actually stating a fact with my original comment about Mr. Keane -

NSFW

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=19144768

Nunu

Christ i feel sorry for the mods!

Just don't resort to name calling...in any context and you'll be ok. Is it really that hard to refrain from using derogatory terms - justified or not?

eirebhoy

I was banned last year for this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51895941&postcount=19

but I was more annoyed with the joker that reported the post tbh.

kaimera

Crouch and Bellamy didn't like each other? :boggle:

WhiteWashMan

theyre both a couple of ****. especially bellamy. scumbag of the highest order.

i believe both masturbate, and bellemys habitual trips to court for smacking women would certainly back me up that hes a scumbag.

Xavi6

Nunu wrote: »

Christ i feel sorry for the mods!

Just don't resort to name calling...in any context and you'll be ok. Is it really that hard to refrain from using derogatory terms - justified or not?

Yes it is. It's no problem for people to call someone a 'God' or 'King' yet those who think the opposite are banned. Maybe there should be no name calling either positive or negative. See how easy the people from Cork find that!

estebancambias

Xavi you are clutching at straws really.