An open plea

Please do not spam the board and/or allow threads to disintegrate into farce. Lord knows I am equally guilty of this, but we each have a responsibility to make this board as good as it can be.

Peace out

Az

With repetitive slugs like D4 around this will always happen.

Why dont we rid ourselves of this unwanted ginger step-child.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:With repetitive slugs like D4 around this will always happen.

Why dont we rid ourselves of this unwanted ginger step-child.

That includes name calling.

I'm with LJ on this one, the board would be better in that situation

Azania, we take the p*ss out of each other because of our views but it's light hearted and not done to cause offence, I think it's something that keeps the board light hearted. If it got to the point where you couldn't mock at all it would become far too authoratarian.

Sometimes a bit of gentle name calling is needed.

When D4 comes out with gems like "Manny is more accurate than Floyd", even though he throws more and lands less he deserves a bit of banter.

Stupidity should be met with insults.

D4's article was new to this board was it not? It was the policy of the admins to treat these boards afresh and forget what he may have wrote on 606?

Articles stay at the top if they get replies, if noone was interested it would fall down the page.

The problem wasn't D4 but the people who are obsessed with him; check other threads if you'd like and they don't make any of illusions of posting about the subject, just D4. You need banter but not people waiting for D4 to post and then derailing anything he writes.

I agree with LJ and IG. D4 in particular has a very simple and often thinly disguised agenda. It is this agenda which grows tiresome in the extreme through his constant repetition. Yes, his thread was 'new' to this board, but as many of us have migrated here from the old 606 we are all too familiar with his threads of that nature. Name-calling I don't mind. The constant 'I love Manny, Floyd is the devil' routine has less life in it than a necrophiliac's little black book.

I do admit that I'm often quick to be riled by him, but I am not the only one, and it is not for a.want of trying to debate with the guy as an adult first.

Why post the same repetitive rubbish over and over and over again, we don't need it nor do we want to discuss hence the abuse he receives.

Duplicate topics will be merged. Threads that don't get responded to will stay at the bottom. Therefore nothing he posts which doesn't interest you will stay at the top. The problem only exists if you bump the threads by telling him how repetitive he is.

Scottrf wrote:D4's article was new to this board was it not? It was the policy of the admins to treat these boards afresh and forget what he may have wrote on 606?

Articles stay at the top if they get replies, if noone was interested it would fall down the page.

The problem wasn't D4 but the people who are obsessed with him; check other threads if you'd like and they don't make any of illusions of posting about the subject, just D4. You need banter but not people waiting for D4 to post and then derailing anything he writes.

Just because this is 606 version 2 doesn't mean we need a version 2 of every pro manny anti floyd article D4 has previously written, all from a slightly different angle to disguise them as 'new to the board' does it?

When I accused him of running floyd down he stated that he was merely pointing out floyd used dirty tactics, but that he was by no means the dirtiest fighter out there. So why bring it up as an article? If he wants to write about dirty tactics, why not bring up genuinely dirty fighters like ward or Hopkins, why does it always have to centre around floyd? And let's face it, this is a new board and it's very good, but the vast majority of boxing users - yourself included - have migrated from 606 and have heard it all before. The 'new board' angle just gives him licence to write it all again.

imperialghosty wrote:I'm with LJ on this one, the board would be better in that situation

Azania, we take the p*ss out of each other because of our views but it's light hearted and not done to cause offence, I think it's something that keeps the board light hearted. If it got to the point where you couldn't mock at all it would become far too authoratarian.

I'm all for taking the P out of others. But sometimes its difficult to determine what is light-hearted ad what is not. For instance if I took the P out of you ghosty, would that be acceptable to you (with me being a mod and all)?

Scottrf wrote:D4's article was new to this board was it not? It was the policy of the admins to treat these boards afresh and forget what he may have wrote on 606?

Articles stay at the top if they get replies, if noone was interested it would fall down the page.

The problem wasn't D4 but the people who are obsessed with him; check other threads if you'd like and they don't make any of illusions of posting about the subject, just D4. You need banter but not people waiting for D4 to post and then derailing anything he writes.

Well said scott. It appears to be the case.

Maybe we can take this thread and put up some suggestions? How the hell can I make it a sticky?

You're right SBS, I was just calling for consistency; that's the admin's policy not mine.

We both know it would be a very minor problem if people could ignore threads they 'aren't interested in'. But they don't, they will post on them and then complain when the threads are on top.

Not saying it isn't a bit annoying, but it's tolerable, and better than telling people what they can and can't write about.

imperialghosty wrote:Why post the same repetitive rubbish over and over and over again, we don't need it nor do we want to discuss hence the abuse he receives.

If you think it is rubbish why respond to it? The same point applies to those who moan about D4. And calling for another poster to be banned it not on imo. Its akin to a footballer asking the ref to book/send off another player. Its a no no.

Lets get this straight, the problem isn't the majority who are sick to death of D4 posting the same old carp over and over again. It may be a new board but having the same things posted again doesn't make for good debate.

Azania you can take the mick all you want as long as it's warranted, i'm not too bothered by it

imperialghosty wrote:Lets get this straight, the problem isn't the majority who are sick to death of D4 posting the same old carp over and over again. It may be a new board but having the same things posted again doesn't make for good debate.

Azania you can take the mick all you want as long as it's warranted, i'm not too bothered by it

Who decides what is warranted? Me for taking the mick or you for being the "victim" of my micky taking? Once again, should I quote Ghandi and Martin Luther King about majority/minority? The views of the minority are equally as valid (my emphasis and not Ghandi's or MLKs )

The majority rules in democracy. The views of the minority are valid but if the majority decides on something then democratically that is what should be listened to.

Why quote Gandhi? Wasn't he a bit of a racist anyway?

imperialghosty wrote:The majority rules in democracy. The views of the minority are valid but if the majority decides on something then democratically that is what should be listened to.

Wrong. Using your argument, the UK fails the democracy test. Also the majority decided on events in europe in the 1930s. Checks and balances mate. The views of the minority are as valid as that of the majority and should be treated with equal respect.

BALTIMORA wrote:Why quote Gandhi? Wasn't he a bit of a racist anyway?

A bit? That MF'er had it in for Africans in S.Africa. But this is not politics. You know what I mean about Ghandi's views. (blacks in S.Africa were in the majority)

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:The majority rules in democracy. The views of the minority are valid but if the majority decides on something then democratically that is what should be listened to.

Wrong. Using your argument, the UK fails the democracy test. Also the majority decided on events in europe in the 1930s. Checks and balances mate. The views of the minority are as valid as that of the majority and should be treated with equal respect.

Well, the UK isn't a true democracy, more of a republic. We vote in people who make the decisions, the majority don't make the decisions, except in the case of a referendum.

Azania you're losing the plot a bit here. What are you on about in the 30s?

And that's exactly what I mean about quoting the nappy-wearer: Gandhi may have said the things you quoted, but as he was off the mark on other issues his word can't really be taken as being correct.

BALTIMORA wrote:Azania you're losing the plot a bit here. What are you on about in the 30s?

And that's exactly what I mean about quoting the nappy-wearer: Gandhi may have said the things you quoted, but as he was off the mark on other issues his word can't really be taken as being correct.

Errrr... Think he might be referring to Nazi Germany.

BALTIMORA wrote:Azania you're losing the plot a bit here. What are you on about in the 30s?

And that's exactly what I mean about quoting the nappy-wearer: Gandhi may have said the things you quoted, but as he was off the mark on other issues his word can't really be taken as being correct.

I am not losing any plot. The simple fact is that majority rule is not always correct if it is to the detriment of the minority. Majority views lead to genocide in europe.

Not everyone is rigt all the time. Myself included. 8)

Well, the majority didn't decide on events in the 30s, did they? The Nazi party weren't elected by a majority vote.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:The majority rules in democracy. The views of the minority are valid but if the majority decides on something then democratically that is what should be listened to.

Wrong. Using your argument, the UK fails the democracy test. Also the majority decided on events in europe in the 1930s. Checks and balances mate. The views of the minority are as valid as that of the majority and should be treated with equal respect.

Well, the UK isn't a true democracy, more of a republic. We vote in people who make the decisions, the majority don't make the decisions, except in the case of a referendum.

It is meant to be a representative democracy, but misses out on too many checks and balances. When you have landslides elections it becomes a elected dictatorship.

There was a vote and the mods got voted in and it is there job to decide what is best/suitable for this forum. The admins are the checks and balances.

Still think we need a second chamber though.

Well this country is led by a party who are voted in by the majority of those who can be bothered to vote. We may not all like the decisions made by them but we have the right to vote for them.

BALTIMORA wrote:Well, the majority didn't decide on events in the 30s, did they? The Nazi party weren't elected by a majority vote.

The majority were willing to follow orders. I'll also add that the Nazis got slightly less votes than Labour in 2001 and 2005.

D4thincarnation wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

imperialghosty wrote:The majority rules in democracy. The views of the minority are valid but if the majority decides on something then democratically that is what should be listened to.

Wrong. Using your argument, the UK fails the democracy test. Also the majority decided on events in europe in the 1930s. Checks and balances mate. The views of the minority are as valid as that of the majority and should be treated with equal respect.

Well, the UK isn't a true democracy, more of a republic. We vote in people who make the decisions, the majority don't make the decisions, except in the case of a referendum.

It is meant to be a representative democracy, but misses out on too many checks and balances. When you have landslides elections it becomes a elected dictatorship.

There was a vote and the mods got voted in and it is there job to decide what is best/suitable for this forum. The admins are the checks and balances.

Still think we need a second chamber though.

Second chamber? Elected or selected?

imperialghosty wrote:Well this country is led by a party who are voted in by the majority of those who can be bothered to vote. We may not all like the decisions made by them but we have the right to vote for them.

Under he coalition then yes. Blair/Brown won power with less that 40% of those who voted. Majority?

imperialghosty wrote:Well this country is led by a party who are voted in by the majority of those who can be bothered to vote. We may not all like the decisions made by them but we have the right to vote for them.

Majority? guess you don't understand the first past the post system.

Party? Think you will find it's a coalition.

Less than a 3rd of MP had the majority of votes.

Your statement was that the majority DECIDED on events. I'm sure the majority of UK residents have no say in the constant raising of fuel prices, but we still have no choice other than to follow the rules laid down for us by a minority.

And we do not vote for a party we vote in a MP. And the overwhelming amount of people never got the person they voted for elected.

But some people still think that this is a democracy

And lets not start on the unelected executive in Brussels.

You do realise in a coalition that the majority do indeed in some part get what they wanted. We have our electoral system for a reason it works better than any other country.

imperialghosty wrote:You do realise in a coalition that the majority do indeed in some part get what they wanted. We have our electoral system for a reason it works better than any other country.

Read what I wrote again.

Again you are passing opinion as fact. Surprisingly that not many countries choose first past the post when eciding what electoral system to adopt.

I was going to ask what this has ot do with boxing, but politics and boxing are very similar.

Carry on.

BALTIMORA wrote:Your statement was that the majority DECIDED on events. I'm sure the majority of UK residents have no say in the constant raising of fuel prices, but we still have no choice other than to follow the rules laid down for us by a minority.

They decided this coalition. That they regret it now is neither here nor there.

But my point stands. The views of the minority are just as valid. Moreover what's the point in having a board full of backslappers who always agree? D4's views, even though they are unique *ahem* are equally valid as mine when I say (FACTUALLY) that old timers cant hold a candle to modern boxers and their nutrition bars.

One love y'all

imperialghosty wrote:You do realise in a coalition that the majority do indeed in some part get what they wanted. We have our electoral system for a reason it works better than any other country.

Works on keeping the people people apathetic, and keeping the establishment in power and stops minority parties in power.

And our system is not the best run by a long way a very long way.

Indeed. At least you know when you're taking the pisss.

Night.

A thread with a difference but interesting none the less

The Galveston Giant wrote:A thread with a difference but interesting none the less

Keeping things fresh.

Why hasn't this thread been locked seeing as it's not boxing related?

I think, to quote your opeing gambit Azania, "this has degenerated into Farce."
You seem a fairly intelligent guy but this is directionless and ,if I may say, so ,pretty egotistical rambling.

ok