- This topic has 62 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve never even been on the betfair forum, therefore
wouldn’t have a clue. I was only having a laugh.But yeah, no worries, I’ll have more of a think before starting
threads from now on.Matthew, Cormick is the governor of the forum and until such time as he tells you what subjects you can and cannot post and whether the post has to be correctly splet with perfect grammar you carry on mate.
I quite like your threads, not particularly this one, but in general there is an air of honesty and freshness about them.
Thanks mate, nice.
Slagging people off
or insulting public figures
is totally out of order.
To be able this you have to earn your stripes.
Ten years of hard writing
in various whip houses like this one
has put me in the enviable position of chief whipmaster
and high above Cormack’s law.I would say to you Mathew
get thee immediately to a wash house
and apply carbolic
to that large vacant area
under your nose.If you are from the betfair forum
apply blue rinse.Mcririck has come cleanly out
of this thread thanks to
the intervention of the big O.
Appreciated your Ascot ground
decsriptions yesterday.now for some historical background..
The Eton collar was a detachable collar. Modern readers are accustomed to buying shirts with the collars attached as an integral part of the shirt. This is not, of course, how shirts used to be bought. During the second half of the 19th cntury and the early 20th cenbtury, one would buy a waist or shirt waist and then several collars to go with it. As vests or waistcoats were common, one would not always change the shirtwist, but often only the collar. This was done for a variety of reasons. It reduced washing, a critical factor in the 19th and early 20th century household and made shirtwaist last longer because the collar is where shirts often wear out first. This ment by simply changing your collar a boy or man could give a very neat, well kept appearnce.
- Total Posts 17716
I got a rollocking for not posting ‘the TRF way’ when expressing my somewhat forthright opinion of Matthew’s incessant pocket-talking, yet casting aspersions on McCririck’s character and personal hygiene is acceptable?
He may well be on the verge of knocking Cattermole out, but unless Smell-O-Vision is already a reality it’s probably not something that needs to be talked about.
I got a rollocking for not posting ‘the TRF way’ when expressing my somewhat forthright opinion of Matthew’s incessant pocket-talking, yet casting aspersions on McCririck’s character and personal hygiene is acceptable?
He may well be on the verge of knocking Cattermole out, but unless Smell-O-Vision is already a reality it’s probably not something that needs to be talked about.
Yeah it’s acceptable because it’s not meant in an insulting way, I’ve met Mr McRirick on a few occasions and he’s a bit odd, but a nice character.
When he appeared on Celebrity Big Brother, most of the viewers
criticized his appearance etc. Does that make them wrong? does that mean
they’re casting personal insults? Not necessarily, it’s a forum, I’m having a bit
of a joke. No harm in that. If I looked like him, I’d be very grateful if someone made a point.Welcome to the forum Matthew , if I were you I would avoid the wrath of Gamble , its like being savaged by a sheep
Enjoy the experience , and if you can resist slagging people off , unless its Glen of course , that is definitely encouraged
Ricky
C’mon everyone – Matthew’s post was clearly light-hearted and not meant to be taken seriously.
And, in Paul Roy fashion, to put the record straight re-Armchair Jockey what I said to him (via pm btw) was…
We like to conduct the debates on TRF in a certain manner and that doesn’t include attacking other members of the forum
There is a clear difference between Matthew posting of frivolous topics (clearly driven by enthusiasm) and the type of cynical comments made by certain other members of the forum.
Right – let’s move on.
Welcome to the forum Matthew , if I were you I would avoid the wrath of Gamble , its like being savaged by a sheep
Enjoy the experience , and if you can resist slagging people off , unless its Glen of course , that is definitely encouraged
Ricky
Thanks Ricky
all the best
Cormack wrote….We like to conduct the debates on TRF in a certain manner and that doesn’t include attacking other members of the forum
Fine by me, if of course you’re intent on reducing the Forum to the lowest common denominator. How on Earth can this Thread be approved by you Cormack? What is considered humour by some people can be classed subtle form of bullying by others. JM is unable to defend himself and therefore this thread is cowardly and lacks a sense of decency.
The opening Home Page refers to a forum of intelligent debate. If the forum intends competing with ‘that’ down market forum then I think you’ll find more and more members visiting here less and less.
KCormack wrote….We like to conduct the debates on TRF in a certain manner and that doesn’t include attacking other members of the forum
Fine by me, if of course you’re intent on reducing the Forum to the lowest common denominator. How on Earth can this Thread be approved by you Cormack? What is considered humour by some people can be classed subtle form of bullying by others. JM is unable to defend himself and therefore this thread is cowardly and lacks a sense of decency.
The opening Home Page refers to a forum of intelligent debate. If the forum intends competing with ‘that’ down market forum then I think you’ll find more and more members visiting here less and less.
KNot to be critical conundrum, but I think a sign of intelligence would be that if you find a thread that you don’t like, ignore it. Reading through the entire thing & then posting on it, isn’t very intelligent.
To keep the lighthearted intentions of this thread: I can’t blame Matthew for mis-spelling JM’s name. Even though I’ve read it spelled correctly a few times in the last five minutes, I couldn’t spell it properly now for £1000!
And I’ll leave you all (but some in particular) with this from the Mr Benn Little Book Of Life:
‘You don’t have to be serious at all times, to be taken seriously sometimes.’
Have to say I’m not liking the tone of one or two of the responses on this thread … elements of social snobbery and thinly disguised attempts to take the **** … yes, you know who you are … not big and not clever … suggest if you want your own literary gentlemen’s club you go off and form your own somewhere else so that you can vet the applications to join and set them an entrance exam before you allow them to post their views.
Have noticed several attempts to undermine Matthew recently in terms of his contributions … if you don’t like them then don’t respond … simples !!!
Have to say I’m not liking the tone of one or two of the responses on this thread … elements of social snobbery and thinly disguised attempts to take the **** … yes, you know who you are … not big and not clever … suggest if you want your own literary gentlemen’s club you go off and form your own somewhere else so that you can vet the applications to join and set them an entrance exam before you allow them to post their views.
Have noticed several attempts to undermine Matthew recently in terms of his contributions … if you don’t like them then don’t respond … simples !!!
Thanks Burrough Hill, I’ve noticed them aswell, life goes on mate
Conundrum –
I don’t intend to have endless debates about what is acceptable/unacceptable. You’ll have to leave that to my judgement, I do my best to be as fair as I can.
If you don’t like the way the forum is run then I’m afraid that’s too bad.
Nothing is more tiresome to regular (and new) forum readers than this type of navel-gazing pointless debate so I don’t intend to constantly have to explain my actions to you (or Armchair Jockey for that matter).
Clear? Good.
Conundrum –
I don’t intend to have endless debates about what is acceptable/unacceptable. You’ll have to leave that to my judgement, I do my best to be as fair as I can.
If you don’t like the way the forum is run then I’m afraid that’s too bad.
Nothing is more tiresome to regular (and new) forum readers than this type of navel-gazing pointless debate so I don’t intend to constantly have to explain my actions to you (or Armchair Jockey for that matter).
Clear? Good.
There’s no applause smiley. If there was, you’d have several.
Frvilous threads are alright by me so long as they don’t flood the entire board.
All I can say to that is that, after contributing over 1250 posts to the forum, things on here have definitely changed. My writing style has been consistent throughout and yet in recent weeks I’ve been reprimanded twice, the most recent today (see Hughes/Paco thread) is really the final straw.
It was clearly a mistake on my part to return to TRF after the first admonishment because in my humble opinion Cormack, you are not the same liberal proprietor you used to be. What or who has made you change? I’ve not a clue why you now seem so quick to intervene these days? I appreciate there are pressures involved in running a forum like this and it can be time-consuming and demands a fair degree of effort and commitment but who exactly do you feel you are having to please?
If anyone wishes to complain about another member’s behaviour then why can’t that be done via the forum and why do you feel the need to be issuing threats of banning people. We’re not children, though some recent threads suggest that is not entirely accurate, so why adopt this patriarchal stance.
There is no way that I’m prepared to accept anyone attempting to control my freedom of expression. It’s not as though anyone on here is not perfectly capable of defending themselves. It’s not exactly a forum for shy and vulnerable people is it?
I’ve enjoyed the forum from day one, though less so in recent months when the standard of some contributions has been less than thought-provoking. It seems to have dumbed-down but then that’s just my opinion. If you now intend rapping everyone over the knuckles when they dare to heat up the debate or refuse to conform to the norm then once again it’s time I find sanctuary elsewhere.
Good wishes, sincerely.
Ken(West Derby)C’mon everyone – Matthew’s post was clearly light-hearted and not meant to be taken seriously.
And, in Paul Roy fashion, to put the record straight re-Armchair Jockey what I said to him (via pm btw) was…
We like to conduct the debates on TRF in a certain manner and that doesn’t include attacking other members of the forum
There is a clear difference between Matthew posting of frivolous topics (clearly driven by enthusiasm) and the type of cynical comments made by certain other members of the forum.
Right – let’s move on.
Spot on. People accused the original poster of being juvenile when he was clearly being lighthearted, but the only juvenile aspect of this thread is people complaining that Mahttew spelt a person’s name wrong. Is this really what get’s up people’s noses, if it is, I’ll get my coat.
(sorry, that should be matthew
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.