The Cho: vote now

[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.

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?

There’s an explanation and context for Cornflakes ... it was a term coined by a reporter.
It was referencing one aspect ... the fact that he ate pressure for breakfast, something GT said of himself, and bragged about, anyway.
You and I would never call GT cornflakes ... but anyway now that “the Cho” has become an issue, let’s think about it, and decide what is acceptable and what isn’t, going forward.
This might be the watershed moment.. and it might be about time.

[suss]

I go away for a few days and look at what happens ... fmd.

[desertsaint]

really poor form simon. think a bit. if someone uses the cho, cho, richo, or whatever, it is the context of a word that gives it meaning. base your opinion of the word on that context for each post. to ban a word based on what you think. not know, but think, they mean, is simply a ridiculous and a rather arrogant and/or ignorant way of looking at the world.
it doesn't stop criticism of richo. why would you even want to stop criticism on a fan site?
as to claiming urban dictionary is a source? seriously?
i find it pretty bloody offensive you would ride roughshod over the cultural language habits of australians in favour of something dreamed up by some immature brat 11 years ago. think on that for a bit. you have offended a lot of us on here. hence the robust debate.
i thought you may actually stop and think clearly on this. you haven't.

[degruch]

“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.

Nah, not even close...it's a term of endearment and has never been used on this forum as anything else. The best result is for those who posted the lewd comments on here to be banned, and the rest of us can go back to talking footy.

[samoht]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.” as terms of endearment ... I might have missed some? (That’s possible).

[degruch]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.”

Haha! Find me a single one that isn't! You guys were asked to produce the evidence, you're making the accusation. Without the evidence, tell ya story walking.

[samoht]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.”

Haha! Find me a single one that isn't! You guys were asked to produce the evidence, you're making the accusation. Without the evidence, tell ya story walking.

I already cited one earlier in this thread.... where it was not used as a term of endearment, but was used to ridicule.
But you claim it’s a term of endearment .... now its your turn show me one instance.

[degruch]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.”

Haha! Find me a single one that isn't! You guys were asked to produce the evidence, you're making the accusation. Without the evidence, tell ya story walking.

I already cited one earlier in this thread.... where it was not used as a term of endearment, but was used to ridicule.
But you claim it’s a term of endearment .... now its your turn show me one instance.

Not good enough...find Simon one, he's making a ruling based on its use as an insult, but none of you goons have found one.

[samoht]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.”

Haha! Find me a single one that isn't! You guys were asked to produce the evidence, you're making the accusation. Without the evidence, tell ya story walking.

I already cited one earlier in this thread.... where it was not used as a term of endearment, but was used to ridicule.
But you claim it’s a term of endearment .... now its your turn show me one instance.

Not good enough...find Simon one, he's making a ruling based on its use as an insult, but none of you goons have found one.

Is goons another term of endearment?

[degruch]

Refer me to some complimentary posts .. that used “the Cho” or even “Cho.”

Haha! Find me a single one that isn't! You guys were asked to produce the evidence, you're making the accusation. Without the evidence, tell ya story walking.

I already cited one earlier in this thread.... where it was not used as a term of endearment, but was used to ridicule.
But you claim it’s a term of endearment .... now its your turn show me one instance.

Not good enough...find Simon one, he's making a ruling based on its use as an insult, but none of you goons have found one.

Is goons another term of endearment?

It's an accurate description of your little gang, shoving everyone else around for attention. Geez, I sat through all Ted's drafting 'predictions' and ITK talk and didn't say a thing, it's quite obvious that he's been empowered by it, so time to start dishing out bans.

[samoht]

really poor form simon. think a bit. if someone uses the cho, cho, richo, or whatever, it is the context of a word that gives it meaning. base your opinion of the word on that context for each post. to ban a word based on what you think. not know, but think, they mean, is simply a ridiculous and a rather arrogant and/or ignorant way of looking at the world.
it doesn't stop criticism of richo. why would you even want to stop criticism on a fan site?
as to claiming urban dictionary is a source? seriously?
i find it pretty bloody offensive you would ride roughshod over the cultural language habits of australians in favour of something dreamed up by some immature brat 11 years ago. think on that for a bit. you have offended a lot of us on here. hence the robust debate.
i thought you may actually stop and think clearly on this. you haven't.

Criticism is one thing, and it's fine.
But whoever is referring to Richo as "the Cho" is not criticising him - they are ridiculing, disrespecting and abusing him.
Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.
Those who refer to Richo by that term (the Cho or Cho) are not looking at making well-reasoned arguments that bear discussion - they are just looking to abuse, put down and disrespect.
This is a forum to discuss, criticise by offering reasons, etc... not to blurt out abusive rubbish at will.
Where's the respect?? This is a public forum.

[rodgerfox]

really poor form simon. think a bit. if someone uses the cho, cho, richo, or whatever, it is the context of a word that gives it meaning. base your opinion of the word on that context for each post. to ban a word based on what you think. not know, but think, they mean, is simply a ridiculous and a rather arrogant and/or ignorant way of looking at the world.
it doesn't stop criticism of richo. why would you even want to stop criticism on a fan site?
as to claiming urban dictionary is a source? seriously?
i find it pretty bloody offensive you would ride roughshod over the cultural language habits of australians in favour of something dreamed up by some immature brat 11 years ago. think on that for a bit. you have offended a lot of us on here. hence the robust debate.
i thought you may actually stop and think clearly on this. you haven't.

Criticism is one thing, and it's fine.
But whoever is referring to Richo as "the Cho" is not criticising him - they are ridiculing, disrespecting and abusing him.
Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.
Those who post with that term are not looking at making well-reasoned arguments that bear discussion - they are just looking to abuse, put down and disrespect.
This is a forum to discuss, criticise by offering reasons, etc... not to blurt out abusive rubbish at will.
Where's the respect??

?

So "Alan is not a coach's arsehole" is cool?

[samoht]

really poor form simon. think a bit. if someone uses the cho, cho, richo, or whatever, it is the context of a word that gives it meaning. base your opinion of the word on that context for each post. to ban a word based on what you think. not know, but think, they mean, is simply a ridiculous and a rather arrogant and/or ignorant way of looking at the world.
it doesn't stop criticism of richo. why would you even want to stop criticism on a fan site?
as to claiming urban dictionary is a source? seriously?
i find it pretty bloody offensive you would ride roughshod over the cultural language habits of australians in favour of something dreamed up by some immature brat 11 years ago. think on that for a bit. you have offended a lot of us on here. hence the robust debate.
i thought you may actually stop and think clearly on this. you haven't.

Criticism is one thing, and it's fine.
But whoever is referring to Richo as "the Cho" is not criticising him - they are ridiculing, disrespecting and abusing him.
Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.
Those who post with that term are not looking at making well-reasoned arguments that bear discussion - they are just looking to abuse, put down and disrespect.
This is a forum to discuss, criticise by offering reasons, etc... not to blurt out abusive rubbish at will.
Where's the respect??

?

So "Alan is not a coach's arsehole" is cool?

That is also abusive and not cool. This is a public forum - what are we discussing?
That is what everyone who uses the term "the Cho" is doing, what you just did. They are not here to discuss - just to abuse.
With "Richo" - you sometimes get well-reasoned criticism that bears discussion.

[Joffa Burns]

Why you would want to associate yourself with the saying is beyone me. Each to their own.

HYPOCRITE!

You make up an inappropriate nickname for our senior assistant coach while admonishing those using the term cho

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ratta

[Myron Gaines]

really poor form simon. think a bit. if someone uses the cho, cho, richo, or whatever, it is the context of a word that gives it meaning. base your opinion of the word on that context for each post. to ban a word based on what you think. not know, but think, they mean, is simply a ridiculous and a rather arrogant and/or ignorant way of looking at the world.
it doesn't stop criticism of richo. why would you even want to stop criticism on a fan site?
as to claiming urban dictionary is a source? seriously?
i find it pretty bloody offensive you would ride roughshod over the cultural language habits of australians in favour of something dreamed up by some immature brat 11 years ago. think on that for a bit. you have offended a lot of us on here. hence the robust debate.
i thought you may actually stop and think clearly on this. you haven't.

Criticism is one thing, and it's fine.
But whoever is referring to Richo as "the Cho" is not criticising him - they are ridiculing, disrespecting and abusing him.
Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.
Those who post with that term are not looking at making well-reasoned arguments that bear discussion - they are just looking to abuse, put down and disrespect.
This is a forum to discuss, criticise by offering reasons, etc... not to blurt out abusive rubbish at will.
Where's the respect??

?

So "Alan is not a coach's arsehole" is cool?

That’s fine. As is Cho is not a coaches arsehole. “The Alan” on the other hand...

[bigred]

Lol and so it begins!

[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?

There’s an explanation and context for Cornflakes ... it was a term coined by a reporter.
It was referencing one aspect ... the fact that he ate pressure for breakfast, something GT said of himself, and bragged about, anyway.
You and I would never call GT cornflakes ... but anyway now that “the Cho” has become an issue, let’s think about it, and decide what is acceptable and what isn’t, going forward.
This might be the watershed moment.. and it might be about time.

As has been said multiple times already, my interest in this topic has come from the 2 forumites that have spread a lie and attempted to get ppl that their pissed off with in trouble.

This I’m shocked is not a rule breach and it would be horrible if somebody actually had been banned unnecessarily by unwillingly walking into the hornet’s nest.
Those forumites should be ashamed of themselves and are clearly very negative, vindictive ppl.

Whilst I don’t find the word offensive and find that idea farcical... compounded by the fact that still nobody has been able to demonstrate it’s use in a sexually derogatory manner...
you are correct that it’s typically used in a negative light when directed to Richo.

I don’t understand the call to ban it in this sense as a put down is a put down sand will be replaced with something else.

However... for me personally it’s not my style of posting. I didn’t rate Mav Weller but still called him by his name. Pretty much I address all players by name or the common nickname.

As such the closing point for this discussion for us at least is that regardless of the ruling... I will still call Richo Richo or AR and nothing else and on merit I will praise or criticise his coaching to which I haven’t been a particular fan of

Good day sir

[degruch]

Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.

Well, I've finally found an example of Cho used in a derogatory statement, and the work 'cho' isn't even the abusive part!

The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

[samoht]

Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.

Well, I've finally found an example of Cho used in a derogatory statement, and the work 'cho' isn't even the abusive part!

The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

That's right, "the Cho or Cho", itself, is the okay part, but it is nevertheless always associated with an abusive post directed at Richo.
The "the cho/cho" poster is not posting to discuss anything - they are just purely abusing and disrespecting Richo, for the sake of it.

[degruch]

Do you see critcism when you read: "Cho is not a coach's arsehole" - all I see is crudeness, disrespect and abuse.

Well, I've finally found an example of Cho used in a derogatory statement, and the work 'cho' isn't even the abusive part!

The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

That's right, "the Cho", itself, is the okay part, but it is nevertheless always associated with an abusive post directed at Richo.

Just don't type the abusive bit then...otherwise, by that reasoning, insert 'degruch' instead of 'cho' (which, incidentally, would make it a truthful statement) and I've become a derogatory term...ban DEGRUCH!!! Meanwhile, Ted is quite happily posting in other threads this morning, not having produced a shred of evidence to back up his claims anyone has done anything but use the term to abbreviate Richo, when he should be sitting on the pine for posting pornographic content, baiting and trolling.

[desertsaint]

so is the issue "the cho" or the abuse? posters can use "the cho" if they write a supportive post?
perhaps you mistakenly think by eradicating the word you'll eradicate the abuse?
i've noticed every single abusive post seems to be by a saints supporter. if we ban them perhaps the abuse will stop.
perhaps just ban discussion about the coach full stop - every thread on him contains a fair bit of negativity. i'd hate to think people on the interweeb thingy will see those posts as permission to go carte blanche on criticising our coach.

you know the first thing repressive dictators and governments do is ban all forms of criticism. all discussion must be positive. they live a lie and try to enforce that upon the people. such a mindset is a dangerous thing.
as is a mindset whereby we actively pursue what we think is the 'best' world for our citizens, our family, our forum, and pursue this by curtailing individual freedoms that don't fit into this 'best' world view.
Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.”
but others great minds thought similarly:
Confucius: "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."
Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

[Dis Believer]

Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

See, I said a while ago that the Urbane Dicktionary was right up there with Shakespeare...……….does that make me a profit?

[dragit]

Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

See, I said a while ago that the Urbane Dicktionary was right up there with Shakespeare...……….does that make me a profit?

You've got to be choking champ.

[desertsaint]

Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”

See, I said a while ago that the Urbane Dicktionary was right up there with Shakespeare...……….does that make me a profit?

it'll make you a profit if you can take over their coffee mug contract.

[outside66]

It's clearly the off season with this sort of rubbish... FWIW, I'll indulge.

Firstly; 'the cho/cho is just a straight up stale nickname.

Secondly; some people have found it to be offensive and it actually is a known term that millenials get around - I asked an 18 y.o fellah yesterday whether he knew what it meant and he had a giggle then confirmed what is up on UD.

Thirdly; I liken this situation (whilst in no-way as heavy) similar to that of the Adam Goodes booing in that, a minority would be booing because of truly vindictive agendas whilst the majority did it for the 'fun' of it or just because everyone else was doing it. When Goodes came out and said that he found it offensive, then that should've been enough for normal people to cut it out, leaving only the twits behind to carry-on with it.

In summary; just because you don't find it offensive and don't mean to be derogatory in any way, then it should be easy enough to move on and use a colloquially accepted nickname.