- This topic has 49 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I bought a copy of the R/Post yesterday to give Ludlow a whirl. Concentrated on the 3.10. I picked out Armenian Boy after about a quarter of an hour.
Nice win, worthwhile price; makes me want to repeat the experience.
Midweek Flat meetings just don’t work like that.
I always think that when empirical evidence is required, it’s probably best to limit the sample size to one.
Can your posts get any more ridiculous?
Mike
Betlarge, that opening post is a sad cameo of everything this once great racing forum has become over the last 18 months.
When you consider we once had posters of the calibre of carvillshill, maxilon, apracing, davidjohnston, seanboyce, reethard, imperialcall, Pinza, TDK, the now rarely spotted Drone and Glenn, etc,etc,etc….
Hardly worth the effort anymore.
reethard,
What the ???? is he doing in there!
Do know what you mean though Cav.
Value Is EverythingIs there a way of blocking a member? I swear, watching this forum get spammed by this constant barrage of mind numbingly inane drivel is making my angina act up.
Edited:
Betlarge, that opening post is a sad cameo of everything this once great racing forum has become over the last 18 months.
When you consider we once had posters of the calibre of carvillshill, maxilon, apracing, davidjohnston, seanboyce, reethard, imperialcall, Pinza, TDK, the now rarely spotted Drone and Glenn, etc,etc,etc….
Hardly worth the effort anymore.
How tedious are posts like this from people who think they own the forum.
What a shame The Professor has seemingly upset the clique that plagues this forum.
What a shame The Professor has seemingly upset the clique that plagues this forum.
I can assure you I’m not a part of any clique.
I’ve always thought if you don’t like someones posts, then simply don’t read them. It’s not hard. Go and contribute to the threads that do appeal. I’ve no problem with Professors ramblings. He’s entitled to.
I’ve always thought if you don’t like someones posts, then simply don’t read them.
Couldn’t disagree more. I think it’s always good to engage with people you disagree with.
Mike
I find the sorts of nasty, gratuitously offensive and thoroughly unpleasant comments used by Bachelors Hall against a relatively new forum member far more despicable than any rantings that Professor Trubshawe might make.
This is the sort of bad-tempered, intolerant, foul-mouthed post that would be more likely to prove distasteful to many long-standing and new members of the forum alike than any of the Professor’s postings.
I’m really surprised that the gratuitous and unnecessary use twice of the f-word has not been auto-deleted and replaced with "expletive" as usually seems to happen to other swear words used here. Similarly, with the p-word, which again is totally unnecessary and downright nasty.
I’m really surprised David Cormack and the other moderators have allowed this sort of abuse.
The forum has a wide range of contributors, some more earnest and respected than others, but the idea of "blocking" a member for choosing to write admittedly self-indulgent and often provocative posts seems over the top.
As Superman rightly points out, there must be lots of comments and threads that old stagers here don’t approve of but there is no need to take such an arrogant, insulting view to postings by someone else.
Even if the postings are deemed beneath contempt because the subject matter is not approved of by some or deemed worthy enough, there is no need for any member to be using the f-word in such a despicable way to other forum members.
** Since making this post, I note that the f-word comments from Bachelors Hall have been removed from his post.
I’ve always thought if you don’t like someones posts, then simply don’t read them.
Couldn’t disagree more. I think it’s always good to engage with people you disagree with.
Mike
One of the posts was edited, where another poster went on what would equate to a foul mouthed rant. It didn’t offend me at all, but it prompted me to say that if you don’t like someone, then just read posts/threads you do like. Anther posters comments are hardly engaging either. I don’t believe singling out a poster as an example of how this forum has went downhill in his eyes could be looked upon as engaging either.
** Since making this post, I note that the f-word comments from Bachelors Hall have been removed from his post.
I can use some naughty words again to give you a leg up back onto your high horse… if you want.
** Since making this post, I note that the f-word comments from Bachelors Hall have been removed from his post.
I can use some naughty words again to give you a leg up back onto your high horse… if you want.
Shouldn’t be necessary. You should be able to express yourself without resorting to telling other contributors to f-off.
OK. I’ve taken a breather and am considerably calmer.
I would like to apologise for my use of colourful language earlier. I was agitated by real life events far removed from this forum and my expletive riddled outburst was an ill restrained projection of my vexation. If anybody was offended by my choice of words then I am sorry.
I would also like to apologise to the moderator who had to take the time to amend my post. Language is a powerful thing and my ability to navigate around the auto-delete function is one that I should refrain from using on this forum as it’s clearly not the place for it.
As for the ramped topic, I agree for the greatest part that if one doesn’t want to encounter the inane drivel all too frequently spouted by OP, one has the rudimentary option of simply avoiding it. If OP wasn’t encouraged by the levels of attention he receives, he would probably get bored and take his exploits elsewhere. I see no point in engaging with an individual with an agenda devoid of open and reasoned discussion but these are my feelings.
I’ll now revert to my usual policy of ignoring OP.
OK. I’ve taken a breather and am considerably calmer.
I would like to apologise for my use of colourful language earlier. I was agitated by real life events far removed from this forum and my expletive riddled outburst was an ill restrained projection of my vexation. If anybody was offended by my choice of words then I am sorry.
I would also like to apologise to the moderator who had to take the time to amend my post. Language is a powerful thing and my ability to navigate around the auto-delete function is one that I should refrain from using on this forum as it’s clearly not the place for it.
As for the ramped topic, I agree for the greatest part that if one doesn’t want to encounter the inane drivel all too frequently spouted by OP, one has the rudimentary option of simply avoiding it. If OP wasn’t encouraged by the levels of attention he receives, he would probably get bored and take his exploits elsewhere. I see no point in engaging with an individual with an agenda devoid of open and reasoned discussion but these are my feelings.
I’ll now revert to my usual policy of ignoring OP.
Who’s OP?
I always think that when empirical evidence is required, it’s probably best to limit the sample size to one.
Can your posts get any more ridiculous?
Mike
Chaser’s Chance today. Two winners at decent prices in two days. Doesn’t happen like that for me during the flat season. That’s all I’m saying, Betster.
I don’t really understand why forum members get so angry with my posts. I speak as someone who the industry should love: young (ish) and will attend race meetings, and gamble on horses in a fairly spirited fashion: prepared to throw money at their sport.
I therefore reserve the right to speak my mind. If people read what I write instead of what they think I write they might get over themselves a bit.
I don’t rave about jockey conspiracies, bent trainers and fixed races as other members do repeatedly.
I occasionally complain about farcical afternoons and boring races; races that are insults to one’s intelligence.
I may become slightly annoyed by a trainer being rather tightlipped on tv or in the R/Post only to see them say afterwards: we really fancied the horse. Etc
Anyone not annoyed by these things is either lying or not normal.I don’t accuse jockeys and trainers of being crooked, I don’t rave about any of that.
I will say some sections of the sport are a bitartful
sometimes maybe; perhaps sometimes there is a little too much training in public going on, at least in the sense of offering a viable betting product that can trancend addicts and anoraks to restore the sport to levels of interest seen long ago.
Sometimes it is worth commenting on how racing can corner the market in Sod’s law in a way you don’t see in another sports.Huge-field sprints are financed by bookies to con punters out of money by offering a dazzling field of prices to reel in the greedy. What is wrong with pointing that out? I’d prefer five £12,000 races with a reasonable field size. Etc.
I suspect that it is the
reasonable
nature of my remarks that really annoys die-hard loyalists.
But why? I have never seen an explanation of their rage, just angry ripostes saying ‘don’t bet on horses’.
If it is regarded as being bad to point out negative aspects of the racing experience then this forum surely fails on its own terms.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.