Matteh
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ignoring your vendetta....No, you just thought I meant it. Believe it or not, I know better than you what I mean and what I don't.
I can confirm that a few people around CW share that view.
Ignoring your vendetta....No, you just thought I meant it. Believe it or not, I know better than you what I mean and what I don't.
That's completely un-called for, and is hardly the sort of comment you should be making to any member on the site. I bet you wouldn't like it if another member said that about yourself.All his posts are ****ing awful, but that's just my opinon.
I'm well aware they do:Ignoring your vendetta....
I can confirm that a few people around CW share that view.
They're all wrong, however.I think Richard posts something he means half-jokingly or as a half-truth and uses the "jest" as a bail out clause if necessary...if that makes sense
Richard, do you think you're funny?
Get over this jest crap its not funny FFS.
Or worse, people can think you're being 100% serious. That's something that needs to be avoided at all costs.Essentially people can't tell when he's kidding or not, which usually is a sign of someone being too uptight most of the time and when they try and be funny then it's usually found wanting.
And that's absolute bull****, frankly.Agreed. It's worse than dire Rich. I know you have urges to post at every opportunity
That's untrue, there's about a hundred of us who say it to him constantly.I bet you wouldn't like it if another member said that about yourself.
Perhaps, but even so, it isn't appropriate.That's untrue, there's about a hundred of us who say it to him constantly.
In the past i personally have been given a warning for swearing and i don't see that happening anymore and its freaking ridiculous.The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.
Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.The rules were stated a while back as though as long as you don't try to avoid the filter, and don't directly abuse anyone, then it's okay. If swearing's not allowed and there's a filter, it defeats the purpose.
Agreed.HeathDavisSpeed said:the needless lengthening
of a post
by putting in loa
ds of blank lines
for no real reason
is
even more annoying.
The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.I agree fully, I've never so much as once been pulled-up for posting what's nothing more than a few asterisks. I mean, fair enough if you make a post with 10 of them someone might be justified in saying something, but the notion that anyone was ever told-off for just the odd piece of excercising the filter (which I'm assured, especially by Mitchell, they did) is a mad one IMO.
Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.
As I say - I've tried that, more than a few times, and plenty often enough it doesn't work.And IMO, Richard, it really isn't hard to use an appropriate smiley to get across when others shouldn't be taking you seriously.
Interesting then...Richard said:Exactly. That's the way it should be and in the time since I've been back since January, the way it has been.
TBH, if you were making any sort of point I'm surprised you didn't even mildly chastise this too:
Insults that include swearing are generally, for obvious reasons, taken as larger attacks than insults with no swearing.The whole reason i managed to get Hing banned for 7 days was because he was getting warned for just swearing and insulting me because i was (quite clearly) winding him up.
The only reason I wondered whether some chastisement was coming was because of the insult. It'd have been no different if KiWi had said "that Fuller fool" or summat.Interesting then...
What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.The only reason I wondered whether some chastisement was coming was because of the insult. It'd have been no different if KiWi had said "that Fuller fool" or summat.
What's to say he wasn't using the "s-word", referring to the whole kerfuffle about Fuller, rather than an asterisked word about Fuller used as an insult. That's what I first read it as; it may have been a direct insult, but I'm not going to go firing shots everywhere.