Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:32 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

You could just put him on your block list

supreme irony. FA is the champion of the block list, but check out his responses. As I said Dr Feelgood, there's a load of FA's Bullmchums on this forum.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:37 pm  

and the reason they are his Bumllchums? because the quantity and NATURE of his posts are so bloody wearing that if you cannot moderate him, join him.

Not for me.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:40 pm  

Just to address the balance, I do like FA's considered posts about the Bulls team and the way they have or have not played. If only he would stick to that, and confessing he has no sense of humour.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:54 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And I'm entitled to have an opinion on their opinion. That's the bit you miss.

No, it's not, you need to look up "sarcasm".

Your other problem is that if any post is made in response, to anything that response always equals "trying to wear a person down". I find this a very strange concept. Someone else posts - that is never, to you, wearing anyone down. But I post - that IS, somehow, trying to wear someone down. Even by your standards of "logic", isn't that a bit contradictory?

Anyhoo, trying to work out WTF you're on about is wearing me down, so crack on.

It is the quantity and emotive quality of your posts FA that are so destructive to genuine debate (=wearing people down) on this forum. You have admitted you have no sense of humour, so now perhaps it is time for you to admit that you have no self awareness, and that you obsession with being a winning solicitor has no place on a forum that is supposed to be about discussion and debate about the Bradford Bulls.

As soon as you accept that you argue for arguments sake, the sooner this forum will be free of a TROLL.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:15 pm  

So, VBFG, statistician supreme, can you please do an analysis of who is the biggest poster on this forum, and also - if you can cope with such a challenge - the emotive quality of their postings. Get what I mean, volume as one factor times emotion as the other factor. The emotive dimension is clearly a difficult one, but I would suggest that you use negative comments as a -10 and positive responses as a +10, and see where you get. Bulliac should be on that basis a resounding NIL. which is a compliment to him: if only he had the bulls to impose his balance on the Fing Aholes of this forum.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:29 pm  

Block list? Mine reads: "No foes currently defined"

Well, I find you funny, so my sense of humour must be working, but at least I'm not a homophobe, ("Bullmchums", ffs)

That's all I will restrict myself to replying to your offensive polemic, as (1) I don't think personal abuse is the way forward, (2) I have no wish to personally abuse you and (3) and I'm struggling to see how you think your personal vendetta relates to Bulls -v- Batley.

The mods can, I'm sure, speak for themselves, and I'm sure will pull their moderating socks up, now that you've set them straight. I do look forward to their views on the Fing Aholes of this forum, in the meantime, here's one for you to be going on with

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:32 pm  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

I really didn't take any offense at his post, I thought it were a little bit funny if I'm honest. The only way I may have taken a bit of offense is if I thought his opinion carried any weight.

I carry more weight than you could possibly imagine

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:06 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Block list? Mine reads: "No foes currently defined"

Well, I find you funny, so my sense of humour must be working, but at least I'm not a homophobe, ("Bullmchums", ffs)

That's all I will restrict myself to replying to your offensive polemic, as (1) I don't think personal abuse is the way forward, (2) I have no wish to personally abuse you and (3) and I'm struggling to see how you think your personal vendetta relates to Bulls -v- Batley.

The mods can, I'm sure, speak for themselves, and I'm sure will pull their moderating socks up, now that you've set them straight. I do look forward to their views on the Fing Aholes of this forum, in the meantime, here's one for you to be going on with

The response from FA proves the point.

check out point 3 everybody, how has FA's vendetta against Eddie on the previous pages of this thread got anything to do with Bulls V Batley? you really are a hypocrite FA. this is what is meant by your overbearing oppressive attitude.

Shame you cannot understand a metaphor. Of course you are not bullgering the moderators and your other Bullchums, stupid. Its a METAPHOR. Makes me wonder, if you cannot understand a metaphor, quite where you are mentally? No homophobia in me, but I do dearly suspect you suffer from misanthropy.

And the really definitive response to my comments was: no comment. And yet you could not resist it, you had to have your say, and prove me and Eddie right. Moderators please take note.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:10 am  

So, Dr Feelgood, that is just a normal discussion with FA on this forum. Not nice. If you want to avoid the invective from FA, then make your posts completely bland and innocuous, otherwise EVEN THOUGH YOUR ARE A BULLS FAN, FA will be after you. Just check back through the threads.

Re: 19/6/16 Bulls -v- Batley : Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:19 am  

of course you dont have anybody on your block list despite recommending it to others on numerous occasions, that is because you just want to argue with anybody you can. Come on, admit it, the only reason you are on this forum is for an argument, you cheapskate, you solicitors should be able to afford the Monty Python Argument Clinic fees