Demmit, that cuts out the real fun stuff...."play the ball, not the man" Doesnot ring a bell, I was knicknamed the woodchopper or the axe...or the guillotine when I kicked higher
I feel I should provide additional clarification in your case.. play the soccer ball, and definitely not the man's balls.
You don't have to agree to specific preconditions to post on here over and above the t&c of the message board.
I'm sorry you can 'surmise' as much as you like but don't keep trying to state it as 'fact', you don't know where Chelsea will be now if they weren't bought by Abramovich and mentioning Newcastle or Liverpool has nothing to do with it. Just prove to me that they wouldn't have won the league last year without Abramovich, then tell me where Man Utd would be without the Munich air crash, then tell me where Liverpool would be without Shankly, the problem is you can't, you are just surmising, just like somebody surmised that nobody outside the 'top 4' would never win the league ever again the season before Leicester won it, just like somebody surmised that Spurs would never again challenge for the title, just like somebody surmised that Bournemouth would be nothing more than 'whipping boys', how many times do people need to be 'proved wrong' before they stop peddling ifs, buts and maybe's as 'facts'.
Okay, now you are being silly. You are accusing barroldinho of what you did yourself with assuming Chelsea would be fine without the Abramoney, while collapse was imminent.
YUP The same reason the rest of us aren't allowed to post without restriction on this, or any other thread. No, but each forum, sub-forum, thread, etc takes on their own "life" .... and it is moderated accordingly. Yet you can "surmise" to try and puff up your opinions and discussion points? Yeah, no. You went off on how Chelsea would have been peachy even if Abramovich hadn't bought in DESPITE THE FACT OF THE MATTER BEING THEY WERE ON THE VERGE OF COLLAPSE. Yeah, no.
I didn't state as "fact" anything that didn't happen. I presented probabilities. You're the one trying to dismiss the fact that Roman Abramovich used his own money to buy elite talent and bring in elite coaching staff of a level that Chelsea could not otherwise afford. Those players and staff were what turned Chelsea from recent dark horses on the brink of financial trouble, into a dominant force in the Premiership and a contender in Europe. We don't KNOW what would have happened had he not done that. We DO KNOW the effect that his spending had. We ALSO KNOW that they were scrambling to make urgent deals to restructure debt that was on the verge of putting them deep in the sh1t. And the most important thing that would've been different if the Munich Air Disaster hadn't happened, would've been the 23 lives that weren't lost that day.
Which is fine if enforced evenly. But when one particular person is subject to preconditions, but seemingly no one else is, then not so much.
And as was pointed out to one particular person: He ain't the only one that had posts deleted, got PMs about language/tone, yellow cards, etc etc. The difference between one particular poster and most others in this particular thread, is that one particular poster spent a very good while not actually posting anything of substance at all AND flat out not engaging in the discussion he bitched and cried about wanting to have.
What's this going to lead to? Is it impossible for me to win Euromillions? The probabilities against me are staggering, but no, not impossible. The probabilities for Leicester to win the league I would love to have as the odds for me to win the Euromillion jackpot. Then I probably would spend a years income on lottery tickets.
"Seemingly". You've got blinkers on or you're on a wind up. @USRufnex took interactions with myself and others, down the path of snark and condescension, then became incensed when we responded in kind. There were numerous attempted armistices, that were honoured by everyone but him. We even had a thread reboot. I personally reached out to him more than once to smooth things over, long before things reached their peak. Those efforts went unacknowledged. He repeatedly mischaracterized people's stances and positions. On more than one occasion, he claimed that he would have assaulted people had these conversations been taking place face-to-face. He was reprimanded at least once for making a prejudiced slur. If you look at his interactions on other threads and forums, these issues were not restricted to this thread and the individuals here. His inclination to be a condescending, belittling jerk to people is prevalent wherever he posts. Now when you create that level of bad feeling, then promptly throw your toys out of the pram when you get it in return, a couple of things happen: 1) People find it amusing 2) There's little motivation to refrain from pushing your buttons I flat out pointed that out to him numerous times, starting very early in our interactions. Again, it went entirely unheeded. Like I said, I'm not sure if you're being sincere with this or not, but had you been on an opposing side of a debate to Rufnex, your own general tone would easily have had you on his proclaimed "ignore list".
USRufnex is hardly the only one whose behaviour has been less than "ideal". He got banned and served his suspension and now has a pre-condition attached to his ability to post here. I think that's simply wrong, and doubly unfortunate in that he was one of the few that posted on the pro pro/rel side of the debate. No skin off my back if anyone wants to put me on their proclaimed "ignore list". Always interesting to see which posters respond to my comments about this...
Why is it interesting? It's no secret that I've had some of the most heated interactions with him and that I've also actively taken the piss out of him. I've admitted that I've taken it too far at times and that I've been guilty of using his unwillingness to moderate his own approach as an excuse to consider him "fair game", to the point of self-indulgence. Regardless, it's only natural that I'd have things to say on the matter. To you, I'd say that this isn't the first time that you've vaguely alluded to something without giving detail. When responded to, you'll start to introduce counterpoints that may not have been clear or known to those reading your posts. I recognise this as a strategy. I personally had no idea that @USRufnex had been banned and I'm clearly not privy to any conditions surrounding his posting on this thread or any other thread. If you'd like to expand on this topic that you've introduced and explain why he was banned, from where and what these restrictions are, then perhaps we can discuss the situation properly. Until you do so, all we know is that something happened and you consider it "wrong".
What point are you trying to make? Why would the moderator say anything? By declining to expand on your point, you're making mine.
Your point seems to be that @USRufnex is somehow treated differently to other posters. Nothing I posted made that point. I simply outlined prior events. If I'm mistaken, point out how. Why are you reluctant to expand on the issue you alluded to?
Your posts illustrate your behaviour. My point about USRufnex is crystal clear namely he's served his ban and should be free to post here without preconditions, just like any other poster. Interesting as to which poster feels the need continually to respond on this.
As do yours. What preconditions? What was he banned for? That's what I'm asking you to elaborate on. That's where you're being vague. I'm glad I interest you. It's no more interesting than someone who habitually uses inflammatory terms like "cartel" and "rigged" to describe relatively mundane concepts, suddenly leaping unprompted to the defence of an historically poorly-behaved poster, knowing that said defence would be contrary to the general opinion of others on the thread.
Ask the moderator. It's interesting how you can't accept another's viewpoints without resorting to comments like this, which really brings us back to why the heck is it USRufnex that is having preconditions put on him. I see plenty of "historically poorly-behaved" posters on this thread... apparently only one of whom has preconditions put on them to post on here.