The Cho: vote now

[skeptic]

You know what the term means now so you can no longer plead ignorance.

Are you honestly of the belief that the definition posted by a random person on Urban Dictionary (amongst the many other definitions also posted on there) is officially what the term means?

Are you actually being serious?

In a word "yes"

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Wasn't only me who realised that certain posters were using the term to insult the coach.

So, you believe that the official definition of the term 'cho' is that which has been posted by a random, anonymous individual on an unmoderated website? Even though that same website has many other definitions, and Google has even more. And, even though the actual dictionary has no official definition for it?


Are you actually being serious here?

It’s very clear what’s going on here

The sad reality is that there are 2 forumites here that are involved in about 90% of all the conflicts on this forum. People like you, me, Dragit etc get drawn into these ridiculous things more than we should but there are 2 that are always over-represented.

Having been repeatedly hammered by numerous posters for either attacking their credibility to post, posting information that’s not true or just a degree of righteousness... both forumites latched onto this Cho thing as an attempt to get people in trouble.

This has failed dismally after being repeatedly exposed for the nonsensical farce that it is so tboth have backtracked now to trying to take the moral high ground in seeking the word to be banned on moral grounds.

Simon, who does a very good job, instead recognising this for the farce that it is has bought right into it.

This focus should be on the people here constantly starting trouble out of nothing.

[samoht]

The people who insist on using the term are the ones fomenting the trouble.

Just stop being disrespectful and stop using it.

Simple.

Desist and respect.

[rodgerfox]

If it's a controversial term - which it is now, whether it was intended to be or not - why use it?
What's the big deal ?

It certainly is disrespectful, one way or the other - even outside its sexual connotations.

It's not meant to compliment.

Respect!

FWIW, although I've never actually used the nickname Cho, I always did in fact see it more as term of endearment than anything. Most nicknames are exactly that when referencing their name.

[saynta]

If it's a controversial term - which it is now, whether it was intended to be or not - why use it?
What's the big deal ?

It certainly is disrespectful, one way or the other.

Respect!

What a load of s***.

Why is it controversial? And why is it disrespectful? To whom, and why?




I've listed two equally 'controversial' terms in the past 30 mins - based on exactly the same criteria that 'cho' is apparently offensive.

Yet no one gives a s***.

Ted. Takeaway.

Use of either of the above terms must be stopped immediately. They both know the terms are offensive, yet they continue to post.


Outrageous!!!




I honestly cannot believe that people are quoting Urban Dictionary. I'm genuinely staggered by it.

Grow up.

Grow up??

Are you taking the piss?

Coming from someone who quotes Urban Dictionary as a reference point?

I merely googled the term after others alerted me to the true meaning.

And no I am serious. Posters on here have been singling out Richo for abuse ever since the North game. A lot of it vile.

Would you have me believe that forum members all of a sudden developed a warm and fuzzy nick name for the coach?

Do you still believe in the easter bunny and the tooth fairy?

I normally enjoy your posts and don't really understand why the subject point has been lost on you.

[rodgerfox]

It’s very clear what’s going on here

The sad reality is that there are 2 forumites here that are involved in about 90% of all the conflicts on this forum. People like you, me, Dragit etc get drawn into these ridiculous things more than we should but there are 2 that are always over-represented.

Having been repeatedly hammered by numerous posters for either attacking their credibility to post, posting information that’s not true or just a degree of righteousness... both forumites latched onto this Cho thing as an attempt to get people in trouble.

This has failed dismally after being repeatedly exposed for the nonsensical farce that it is so tboth have backtracked now to trying to take the moral high ground in seeking the word to be banned on moral grounds.

Simon, who does a very good job, instead recognising this for the farce that it is has bought right into it.

This focus should be on the people here constantly starting trouble out of nothing.

Nothing could be clearer.

I'm in shock that it's even being debated.

[saynta]

The people who insist on using the term are the ones fomenting the trouble.

Just stop being disrespectful and stop using it.

Simple.

Desist and respect.

Yep. Same people who always try and attack posters who support the club.

They go around liking each others posts and clapping themselves on the back whilst bullying others.

And for what it is worth, Fiik how you can be accused of starting arguments with posters who you never respond to but who still stalk you month after month.

[samoht]

Cho might be a term of endearment and a bit more acceptable - but I think you will agree, rodgerfox, that it can only be judged within the context of how it's being used.

I think that's why Simon is going to the trouble of assessing this.

Richo is already an abbreviation, anyway - and less controversial - not controversial, actually.

[bigred]

Oh really?

Somewhat of a generalisation there Saynta.

[rodgerfox]

I merely googled the term after others alerted me to the true meaning.

You do realise that Google is a search engine right? It merely presents data from external sources. Doesn't matter how you came across the 'definition', it was sourced from Urban Dictionary.

If you do a tiny bit of homework (in fact far, far less than what it took me to find an offensive definition of the word 'Cho'), you'd know this:

Visitors to Urban Dictionary may submit definitions without registering, but they must provide a valid email address.

By default, each definition is accepted or rejected based on the number of "Publish" or "Don't Publish" votes it receives from volunteer editors. The editors are not bound by any criteria for the approval or rejection of definitions. Editors previously needed a valid email address, but it is no longer required, as three options are provided for new words: "Add It!," "Keep Out!," and "I Can't Decide."

And this is what you're basing your bizarre stance on? Seriously?

And no I am serious. Posters on here have been singling out Richo for abuse ever since the North game. A lot of it vile.

Would you have me believe that forum members all of a sudden developed a warm and fuzzy nick name for the coach?

And this is as clear as day. And why I, like dozens of other posters have jumped into this pathetic debate you've dragged up.

It is as clear as day that you want to defend the honour of the coach. I've never called him Cho, and barely ever even call him Richo - but what you're doing is so incredibly petty and destructive to this site that is simply needs to be called out.

You don't like people hanging s*** on Richardson, fair enough. But what you've done is latch on to a flimsy Urban Dictionary definition that is just so utterly obscure and ridiculous as a way to basically be a jerk and wreck this site even further.

Just argue a good argument, and you'll be fine. Threads will be fine. The site will be fine. Take each point, and debate it. I don't understand why you (and others) have to roll the way you do.

Keep pulling this s*** like you do over, and over and over again in every thread you post in and you'll drag the site down with you like you always do.

I normally enjoy your posts and don't really understand why the subject point has been lost on you.

I have no idea what the two have to do with each other.

[saynta]

Oh really?

Somewhat of a generalisation there Saynta.

Not really.

[saynta]

I merely googled the term after others alerted me to the true meaning.

You do realise that Google is a search engine right? It merely presents data from external sources. Doesn't matter how you came across the 'definition', it was sourced from Urban Dictionary.

If you do a tiny bit of homework (in fact far, far less than what it took me to find an offensive definition of the word 'Cho'), you'd know this:

Visitors to Urban Dictionary may submit definitions without registering, but they must provide a valid email address.

By default, each definition is accepted or rejected based on the number of "Publish" or "Don't Publish" votes it receives from volunteer editors. The editors are not bound by any criteria for the approval or rejection of definitions. Editors previously needed a valid email address, but it is no longer required, as three options are provided for new words: "Add It!," "Keep Out!," and "I Can't Decide."

And this is what you're basing your bizarre stance on? Seriously?

And no I am serious. Posters on here have been singling out Richo for abuse ever since the North game. A lot of it vile.

Would you have me believe that forum members all of a sudden developed a warm and fuzzy nick name for the coach?

And this is as clear as day. And why I, like dozens of other posters have jumped into this pathetic debate you've dragged up.

It is as clear as day that you want to defend the honour of the coach. I've never called him Cho, and barely ever even call him Richo - but what you're doing is so incredibly petty and destructive to this site that is simply needs to be called out.

You don't like people hanging s*** on Richardson, fair enough. But what you've done is latch on to a flimsy Urban Dictionary definition that is just so utterly obscure and ridiculous as a way to basically be a jerk and wreck this site even further.

Just argue a good argument, and you'll be fine. Threads will be fine. The site will be fine. Take each point, and debate it. I don't understand why you (and others) have to roll the way you do.

Keep pulling this s*** like you do over, and over and over again in every thread you post in and you'll drag the site down with you like you always do.

I normally enjoy your posts and don't really understand why the subject point has been lost on you.

I have no idea what the two have to do with each other.

What a lot of rubbish. I go out of my way to ignore certain posters who try to bully and harrass me. I never respond to most of them.

The posters causing the trouble here are the ones denigrating the coach, not me.

[rodgerfox]

What a lot of rubbish. I go out of my way to ignore certain posters who try to bully and harrass me. I never respond to most of them.

The posters causing the trouble here are the ones denigrating the coach, not me.

I know you don't believe that.

[saynta]

What a lot of rubbish. I go out of my way to ignore certain posters who try to bully and harrass me. I never respond to most of them.

The posters causing the trouble here are the ones denigrating the coach, not me.

I know you don't believe that.

Oh yes I do.

[dragit]

Cho might be a term of endearment and a bit more acceptable - but I think you will agree, rodgerfox, that it can only be judged within the context of how it's being used.

I think that's why Simon is going to the trouble of assessing this.

Richo is already an abbreviation, anyway - and less controversial - not controversial, actually.

I don't think it would be too hard to find instances of posters using that name whilst alluding to some bizarre sex act if it had ever actually ever happened.

Pure paranoid-fueled delusion that this has been occurring on here AFAICT and Simon suggesting this has been happening prior to doing any research is pretty poor form.

Even if the smoking gun was found, Con using that name in the vain of the urbandictionary entry, do you ban the word? That poster has already been permanently banned, the concept of banning every word that has a derogatory double meaning seems absurd to me.

[rodgerfox]

What a lot of rubbish. I go out of my way to ignore certain posters who try to bully and harrass me. I never respond to most of them.

The posters causing the trouble here are the ones denigrating the coach, not me.

I know you don't believe that.

Oh yes I do.

I barely even know who I'm responding to.

I reply to each post on its merits. I honestly couldn't even tell you half the time who I'm having a discussion with. The name of the person is irrelevant.


You make it personal. You always have. And that's why you find yourself in fights all the time. It's no coincidence.

[saynta]

What a lot of rubbish. I go out of my way to ignore certain posters who try to bully and harrass me. I never respond to most of them.

The posters causing the trouble here are the ones denigrating the coach, not me.

I know you don't believe that.

Oh yes I do.

I barely even know who I'm responding to.

I reply to each post on its merits. I honestly couldn't even tell you half the time who I'm having a discussion with. The name of the person is irrelevant.


You make it personal. You always have. And that's why you find yourself in fights all the time. It's no coincidence.

If you were in my shoes you would know how wrong your statement is. I don't for one moment accept what you say.

I try to stay out of threads started by certain posters but get attacked by the same few posters in others. They are the ones making it personal, not me.

Anyway I don't want to get into an argument with you.

The offensive nick subject has been done to death and is simon's hands now.

[samoht]

Not that I agree with the slang dictionary in all instance ... I agree it's not reliable.

And the original poster might not in fact intended it that "dirty" way.

I just don't like the constant putting down of our coach, as if it's the only area we need to improve in.

We've made coaching changes - and we're not likely to have as many injuries next year - let's see what comes of it.

[kosifantutti]

Nothing at all to do with Richo but I just thought I’d mention we still have 19 shares available in the Saintsational sponsorship. Maybe a chance to meet Richo and discuss it with him personally.

[saynta]

Nothing at all to do with Richo but I just thought I’d mention we still have 19 shares available in the Saintsational sponsorship. Maybe a chance to meet Richo and discuss it with him personally.

I might take a few if the calls to have me banned fall on deaf ears.

[degruch]

I try to stay out of threads started by certain posters but get attacked by the same few posters in others. They are the ones making it personal, not me.

Anyway I don't want to get into an argument with you.

The offensive nick subject has been done to death and is simon's hands now.

Well, you've well and truly outed yourself as the bully and troublemaker in this thread, flinging a few casual generalisms about and attempting to pigeon hole anyone who doesn't think the same as you as perverted, anti-coach, anti-club, blah, blah, blah. Then you blub about being targeted. Well done you...it's not easy drawing such a long bow.

[skeptic]

Whether you like Richo as coach or not is irrelevant to this topic and the use of that word.

If you can’t make the distinction you’re being drawn emotive back pedaling going on in this thread.

Now apparently the issue is that Richo gets too much criticism. That is called an opinion and people have the right to them one way or another as long as the y post within the rules which the majority do.

The issue is meant to be that word being used to put Richo down in a sexually disparaging way...
A repeated claim that is still as of yet not demonstrated



The point isn’t even about the use of the word itself... no one genuinely cares about whether it’s banned or not. It’s the principle behind the complaint which is pure game playing

[rodgerfox]

Cho might be a term of endearment and a bit more acceptable - but I think you will agree, rodgerfox, that it can only be judged within the context of how it's being used.

That's precisely my point.

[Myron Gaines]

Two posters in particular have successfully diverted what was sensible discussion about the suitability of Richo as head coach to this rubbish argument by inserting this stupid urban dictionary reference. Both should cop a holiday.

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

[The_Dud]

Whilst you're at it, can you please vote for an alternate meaning for Rodger?


Thanks.

The clear and blatant use of your screen name to promote beastiality highly offends me.

I pray Saynta stays off google for this one.