The Cho: vote now

[skeptic]

Read my above post - that's how I feel anyway (directly above your post). I associate Cho and "the Cho" as a licence to disparage Richo, and making it a cool sport.

The basis of this thread came from the 2 forumites that have repeatedly stated that the forumites have knowingly directed the term at Alan Richardson in a sexually disparaging manner.

That’s the point.

I’m like RF here... check my history. I’ve used the word ‘cho’ three or four times in the context of actually discussing the word ‘cho’ and it meaning. I could care less about whether or not it’s band.

The point is that the ppl that have been using it haven’t done anything wrong.

That’s the discussion.

The topic of whether or not forumites like, dislike, respect or disrespect Richo as a coach is a red herring that has now been brought up to distract people from the fact that 2 forumites have repeatedly claimed the term has been used to disrespect Richo and can’t prove it.

This thread is calling their BS.

[samoht]

that's how I feel anyway

Yep, you seem unable to effectively discuss the actual situation here because you are too emotionally involved with a wider issue.

I don't like Richo or want him coaching us any more - however I absolutely reject the premise that posters have been using a nickname with some hidden agenda relating to a lewd sexual description. That is the accusation we are discussing which I find really offensive to be honest.

You are misreading and misinterpreting what I'm saying. I already said in an earlier post that the urban dictionary is unreliable - I'm not saying that "the Cho" has that vulgar meaning. I don't think it does, in fact - unless it's a vulgar term use by a small subculture.
it's just that "the Cho' is making it seem cool and okay to write derogatory stuff on Richo - only the derogatory stuff and usually the harshest variety - and that none of "the Cho" posts have been balanced.

[skeptic]

that's how I feel anyway

Yep, you seem unable to effectively discuss the actual situation here because you are too emotionally involved with a wider issue.

I don't like Richo or want him coaching us any more - however I absolutely reject the premise that posters have been using a nickname with some hidden agenda relating to a lewd sexual description. That is the accusation we are discussing which I find really offensive to be honest.

You are misreading and misinterpreting what I'm saying. I already said in an earlier post that the urban dictionary is unreliable - I'm not saying that "the Cho" has that vulgar meaning. I don't think it does.
it's just that "the Cho' is making it seem cool and okay to write derogatory stuff on Richo - only derogatory stuff and usually the harshest variety - and that none of "the Cho" posts have been balanced.

That point is noted and you’re correct... it is being used in a negative context.

But it isn’t and has not been used in a sexually derogative manner as repeatedly claimed... that’s the argument.

[samoht]

that's how I feel anyway

Yep, you seem unable to effectively discuss the actual situation here because you are too emotionally involved with a wider issue.

I don't like Richo or want him coaching us any more - however I absolutely reject the premise that posters have been using a nickname with some hidden agenda relating to a lewd sexual description. That is the accusation we are discussing which I find really offensive to be honest.

You are misreading and misinterpreting what I'm saying. I already said in an earlier post that the urban dictionary is unreliable - I'm not saying that "the Cho" has that vulgar meaning. I don't think it does.
it's just that "the Cho' is making it seem cool and okay to write derogatory stuff on Richo - only derogatory stuff and usually the harshest variety - and that none of "the Cho" posts have been balanced.

That point is noted and you’re correct... it is being used in a negative context.

But it isn’t and has not been used in a sexually derogative manner as repeatedly claimed... that’s the argument.

Not the only argument. I see the term as a carte blanche to write some very derogatory posts and disrespect the coach, while making it seem cool to do so - as if it's a sport.
e.g. "Cho ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it".

[skeptic]

that's how I feel anyway

Yep, you seem unable to effectively discuss the actual situation here because you are too emotionally involved with a wider issue.

I don't like Richo or want him coaching us any more - however I absolutely reject the premise that posters have been using a nickname with some hidden agenda relating to a lewd sexual description. That is the accusation we are discussing which I find really offensive to be honest.

You are misreading and misinterpreting what I'm saying. I already said in an earlier post that the urban dictionary is unreliable - I'm not saying that "the Cho" has that vulgar meaning. I don't think it does.
it's just that "the Cho' is making it seem cool and okay to write derogatory stuff on Richo - only derogatory stuff and usually the harshest variety - and that none of "the Cho" posts have been balanced.

That point is noted and you’re correct... it is being used in a negative context.

But it isn’t and has not been used in a sexually derogative manner as repeatedly claimed... that’s the argument.

Not the only argument. I see the term as a carte blanche to write some very derogatory posts and disrespect the coach, while making it seem cool to do so. And a sport.

If I was to call Paddy Plumpy for example that is an insult. If I was to call him Pimpy that could be inferred to mean something different entirely.

Nobody using the word Cho has used it, as far as I’ve seen, in a sexually explicit manner.

If I’m wrong I’ll back down... but to date, nobody has posted an example and 2 forumites have repeatedly stated its happened on numerous occasions

[dragit]

e.g. "Cho ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it".

As opposed to

Richo ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it.

It really doesn't matter whether you feel that the name has a negative connotation or not, that's not the point being discussed, but I get the feeling you don't actually want to understand this.

[dragit]

If I’m wrong I’ll back down...

Even if you were wrong, we should discipline that poster rather than banning a word because of some obscure double meaning.

[samoht]

e.g. "Cho ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it".

As opposed to

Richo ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it.

It really doesn't matter whether you feel that the name has a negative connotation or not, that's not the point being discussed, but I get the feeling you don't actually want to understand this.

The Cho nickname is just egging on the more derogatory posts, in my opinion - and making it look cool/gangsta.
See if you can top this cool post - my derogatory remarks, etc..
It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.
the Cho doesn't even sound like a person - it's like a thing you can freely abuse.

[dragit]

It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.

You are clutching at straws, removing a word from our lexicon isn't going to change the way people post about someone they think should be sacked.

"Disrespectful" is so far from what we are talking about and you know it.

[skeptic]

e.g. "Cho ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it".

As opposed to

Richo ain’t a coaches arsehole. Everybody with half a clue knows it.

It really doesn't matter whether you feel that the name has a negative connotation or not, that's not the point being discussed, but I get the feeling you don't actually want to understand this.

The Cho nickname is just egging on the more derogatory posts, in my opinion - and making it look cool/gangsta.
See if you can top this cool post - my derogatory remarks, etc..
It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.
the Cho doesn't even sound like a person - it's like a thing you can freely abuse.

That’s fine but I have to agree with RF... that’s not what’s being debated.

Dragit... point taken.

I guess we all have different parts in this argument that have captured our attention

[samoht]

It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.

You are clutching at straws, removing a word from our lexicon isn't going to change the way people post about someone they think should be sacked.

"Disrespectful" is so far from what we are talking about and you know it.

When there are constant derogatory remarks levelled at someone, on a public forum - you expect the moderators to step in, or at least look into it.
Disrespectful is disrespectful, and enough is enough. Sometimes, the line needs to be drawn.

No-one deserves to be constantly reviled. There's a limit to everything.

[dragit]

It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.

You are clutching at straws, removing a word from our lexicon isn't going to change the way people post about someone they think should be sacked.

"Disrespectful" is so far from what we are talking about and you know it.

When there are constant derogatory remarks on a public forum - you expect the moderators to step in.
Disrespectful is disrespectful, and enough is enough. Sometimes, the line needs to be drawn.

No-one deserves to be constantly reviled.

Simon is doing this on his own, he can't read through every thread… if you are really upset by things people are writing about our coach and think they breach the rules, then report them.

If you are just upset because people don't like the coach and want to express it, then I think you need to stop reading, there a lot of passionate people on here and not all of them are happy or positive.

[samoht]

It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.

You are clutching at straws, removing a word from our lexicon isn't going to change the way people post about someone they think should be sacked.

"Disrespectful" is so far from what we are talking about and you know it.

When there are constant derogatory remarks on a public forum - you expect the moderators to step in.
Disrespectful is disrespectful, and enough is enough. Sometimes, the line needs to be drawn.

No-one deserves to be constantly reviled.

Simon is doing this on his own, he can't read through every thread… if you are really upset by things people are writing about our coach and think they breach the rules, then report them.

If you are just upset because people don't like the coach and want to express it, then I think you need to stop reading, there a lot of passionate people on here and not all of them are happy or positive.

I'm not into reporting, and I'm not upset by the two or three offenders (who I see as offenders, anyway) - but I'd be disappointed if the vast and silent majority thinks it's the right of the impassioned supporter to disparage at will and to do so constantly and unabated. I hope that's not the case.
This is a public forum - I hope some rules apply.

[skeptic]

It's disrespectful in itself - without the vulgar connotation.

You are clutching at straws, removing a word from our lexicon isn't going to change the way people post about someone they think should be sacked.

"Disrespectful" is so far from what we are talking about and you know it.

When there are constant derogatory remarks on a public forum - you expect the moderators to step in.
Disrespectful is disrespectful, and enough is enough. Sometimes, the line needs to be drawn.

No-one deserves to be constantly reviled.

Simon is doing this on his own, he can't read through every thread… if you are really upset by things people are writing about our coach and think they breach the rules, then report them.

If you are just upset because people don't like the coach and want to express it, then I think you need to stop reading, there a lot of passionate people on here and not all of them are happy or positive.

I'm not into reporting, and I'm not upset by the two or three offenders (who I see as offenders, anyway) - but I'd be disappointed if the vast and silent majority thinks it's the right of the impassioned supporter to disparage at will and to do so constantly and unabated. I hope that's not the case.
This is a public forum - I hope some rules apply.

I take ur point but again I think you’re arguing something different then what is the key point being discussed.

I take ur point on negativity and I’m someone that’s backed up on the negativity RE the coaches following criticism on this forum.

But for me... what this debate comes down to is two ppl outright lying to get other ppl in trouble when they haven’t broken the rules.
That is something else altogether and it’s not related to the club.

However I have no qualms with what you’re saying in a broader sense

[desertsaint]

...I'd be disappointed if the vast and silent majority thinks it's the right of the impassioned supporter to disparage at will and to do so constantly and unabated.

why would you even think that? you're assuming the worst of your fellow man. that's not a good train of thought to follow.
do unto others. and if you ever end up disappointed then so what? it's their problem, don't make it yours.

[Dis Believer]

Who is Rodger and where did he ask me a question?

Anyway. The mod banned it. Stop using the term and get over. I'm out of this thread. Its got ridiculous.

I've got a few terms I would like to send your way for being a s*** stirring trouble maker. I reckon they would appear in the Urbane Dicktionary, but I don't think you would need a dictionary to understand them, particularly if you have a working knowledge of anatomy...…..

[avid]

I've just read this entire thread, and I still don't have a clue what the Cho word means -- which I think is pretty discreet of everyone on it!

I do get quite disturbed by the relentless and horrible Richo-bashing that goes on in this forum. So while I think there's quite a lot of vile stuff that could well be sanctioned, none of it is based on that particular word that I never knew was offensive. (Took me some time even to realise it was a shortening of Richo!)

If some juveniles are having a quiet smirk about using a rude word that nobody else understands, either just let them get over it, or ban them for being offensive in the sentences they've inserted the word into.

I'm thinking I should now go and google it and see what it means.
But maybe I won't bother.

(Mods -- I know you've got a tricky task here. Just go lightly. It's a bit no-win. Most of us will respect your effort.)

[SuperDuper]

Why use it?

The people who are using the term are using it to disparage a decent, family man.

Outside of the narrow scope of being a coach - he's a human being with feelings and a family.

but the point is that the vast majority using the term are NOT disparaging anyone!
Like Rodger said, is it disparaging to call a guy called Rodger Rodger? Or do we need to call Rodger by some other name because some people use that word to describe sex?

And Rodger for sex is far more common that "the cho" for any sex act

[SuperDuper]

It is now official that The Cho is a "nickname of people with surname Richardson"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... =the%20cho

I personally like Alan Richardson, have never made disparaging comments about him.

I also think his coaching record is not great and perhaps he is better as an assistant than head coach...

I think he has this year to go well (10 wins) or he will be gone. I hope he does well and stays! It means we have a good season!

I also think Cho or The Cho is a good nickname for him and I never had any thoughts of anything sexual when reading or writing it, nor did I think the term was derogatory.

Yes, people making derogatory comments have also used that nickname.. but others have used that nickname when just referring to him in a neutral way..

Anyway, I will now use the term in the official way as suggested by the Top Definition in urban dictionary:
I hope the Cho kicks some (figurative) goals next year!

[saintspremiers]

Has anyone found it a bizarre coincidence that stinger stopped posting just before saynta started posting regularly??

I know the wily old coot will say it’s pure chance and we are all to believe it.

Anyway, this thread just shows how SS has the potential to go down the tube if it is led in that direction.

Simon could probably ban half a dozen posters for using that very evil Urban Dictionary word that is higher than gospel.

I will go off now and self fragagulate.

I’m not even sure what that word means but if someone can visit good ‘ol UD and tell me I’d be most appreciative

[BackFromUSA]

FINAL RULING HERE

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

[dragit]

FINAL RULING HERE

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

It sounds like you are still accusing con of using the name in a lewd context, did you find any posts to support this?

You do realise that name was commonly used on bigfooty well before this, I'm tipping con probably just picked it up there... I can't see any instances that suggest the link you are sure was definitely a DELIBERATE one.

[degruch]

FINAL RULING HERE

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96662

Haha, I'll use it whenever I bloody want, as I have for decades.

Two posters with a history of multiple nicks come on here posting lewd crap, taking aim at honest long term forumites and set about a campaign of bullying, and you bow down to them? Piss weak Simon.

FREE THE CHO!!!

[samoht]

“the Cho” sounds like a thing, an object - and it’s being used to ridicule.
That in itself is offensive.
It’s not Richo the person ... it’s “the Cho”, so you can ridicule away with impunity and no qualms.

It should be banned for this reason, and this reason alone.

But... I don’t believe there’s any vulgar connotation, based on an unreliable source - the urban dictionary.
If a poster thought they could circumvent the rules by using this non-existent term, (outside of the urban dictionary) to continue making lewd suggestions this way - they were wasting their own time, as it’s a fake term.

[skeptic]

“the Cho” sounds like a thing, an object - and it’s being used to ridicule.
That in itself is offensive.
It’s not Richo the person ... it’s “the Cho”, so you can ridicule away with impunity and no qualms.

It should be banned for this reason, and this reason alone.

But... I don’t believe there’s any vulgar connotation, based on an unreliable source - the urban dictionary.

I’m curious then...
What about when people called GT Cornflakes... i always hated that. Would you have advocated to ban that at the time?