: Fri Mar 06, 2009 11:40 am  

waterfield's finest wrote:

That is funny. Unless they're flatcappers, you mean?

Okay.

I wait, with great interest, to see your proof of this.

How, exactly, is any group of posters here 'treated differently' from any other group?

What happens to them, for instance, that does not happen to any other group of posters (or visa versa)?

Are more warnings or bans handed out to this group than are handed out to posters from other groups?

If the answer to the last question is in the affirmative, then have those warnings and bans been handed down for reasons directly linked to whatever constitutes the group (ie to "flatcappers" for being "flatcappers") and for no other reason?

Please feel free to provide explanations and evidence of your findings, together with any other evidence that you consider pertinent to make your case.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:34 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Okay.

I wait, with great interest, to see your proof of this.

How, exactly, is any group of posters here 'treated differently' from any other group?

What happens to them, for instance, that does not happen to any other group of posters (or visa versa)?

Are more warnings or bans handed out to this group than are handed out to posters from other groups?

If the answer to the last question is in the affirmative, then have those warnings and bans been handed down for reasons directly linked to whatever constitutes the group (ie to "flatcappers" for being "flatcappers") and for no other reason?

Please feel free to provide explanations and evidence of your findings, together with any other evidence that you consider pertinent to make your case.

Can you provide a ' link ' to say that they are not treated differently

Pathetic

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:39 pm  

Starbug wrote:

Can you provide a ' link ' to say that they are not treated differently

Pathetic

Agreed. The claims of discrimination are indeed "pathetic".

I didn't ask for "a link". I asked for evidence.

If any group is being actively (or even passively) treated differently – ie discriminated against – there will be evidence.

I'm sure that you – and/or any of the others who make this claim – can easily find it.

And, since the assertion of discrimination has been made by assorted people, it's up to them to provide evidence of that discrimination (just as, if police claim someone has committed a crime, they need to provide this inconvenient thing known as 'evidence').

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:55 pm  

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:57 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Agreed. The claims of discrimination are indeed "pathetic".

I didn't ask for "a link". I asked for evidence.

If any group is being actively (or even passively) treated differently – ie discriminated against – there will be evidence.

I'm sure that you – and/or any of the others who make this claim – can easily find it.

And, since the assertion of discrimination has been made by assorted people, it's up to them to provide evidence of that discrimination (just as, if police claim someone has committed a crime, they need to provide this inconvenient thing known as 'evidence').

No they're not.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:52 pm  

Children, children.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:45 pm  

Anyway, back to Salford.

Please get rid of McRea, he is a joke.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:03 pm  

Chris Dalton wrote:

it should not give anyone the right - or the compulsion - to treat us all with contempt or judge us by the team we support.

Oh the irony!

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:11 pm  

cadoo wrote:

Oh the irony!

It's only ironic if you tell us which hat you've got on. Wigan or Celtic

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:18 pm  

littlerich wrote:

Children, children.

Where did you get the picture of Sam Moa from?