Insights into the mind of ‘cho’

[skeptic]

At this point the majority know what this term allegedly means.

Put the issue to bed by highlighting when/where this group of posters was allegedly using the term in the described context to insult Richo.

Numerous posters in this thread, one in particular laid into a bunch of us that were critical of Richo’s performance as coach for allegedly knowing what this meant and either cooperating, using or supporting its use or some other BS.

Degruch has copped it worse then anyone.

To this day, every time the question of who/when is asked, the forumites that claim to have witnessed it, including one in this thread go quiet.
Put it on the table and we’ll shut up.

It’s not fair that numerous forumites can continually claim others played a part in this without showing a shred of evidence.

[asiu]

your special mate Stinger

was thinking the same thing myself

haha

[Jacks Back]

The users of that phrase in that context actually disgust me.

Yet you and your online gang have never been able to provide any shred of evidence that anyone has used it in that context...in fact, you're the only one that has, the alpha poster!

That is complete and utter bulls*** and you know it. go and ask Simon as he banned at least one poster who deliberately used the term knowing its pornographic meaning.

Simon's too busy hiding from me...he knows I'm right. It shouldn't be up to posters to police this site.

NOT hiding from you just never read this thread until now.

And you are not right.

And I find it disturbing that you feel compelled to fight to use the term now with full knowledge of the meaning and that it was used to sexually demean a decent human being who was trying to the best he could in a tough job.

How you justify this to yourself is astonishing.

And by the way you can call him Alan, Alan Richardson, Richo and EVEN Cho! So the restriction on using one particular phrase is hardly restrictive and the argument against the banned usage an obvious attempt to have the subversive usage permissible again for no mature reason.

What I find disturbing...is that a moderator would seek to openly align themselves with a gang harassing other posters over an unproven claim, provide lame excuses and technicalities as justification for not enforcing a very simple rule, and use UD as reference to back up a flimsy premise that a well known nickname is anything less...even then I'm told you had to scroll down forever to find this alleged meaning.

Overall, as we've discussed, this is less about the phrase, more about protection of posters on the forum.

If you're not hiding, respond to emails, PM's and comments.
If you're not playing favourites, don't protect select posters.
If you want rules to be adhered to, enforce them.

I appreciate it's a big job to look after a forum, but that's on you. At least you've responded for once. If you want people to believe you're the mature one, I'd suggest you stop fostering immature behaviour on here...it shouldn't be up to the forum itself to pull up the troublemakers.

I know who the trouble makers are. They are the ones wanting to use a banned phrase to keep insulting a decent man as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

And you have been harassing me for months now on this subject . And once again you are dead wrong.

The meaning was there in plain site if you google the phrase. No scrolling down required.

How about you follow the rules and accept Simon's ruling.

Do you want to know why "The meaning was there in plain site if you google the phrase"? It's because it's the only place in the whole internet (including known and respected dictionaries) the includes that phrase and which must have been placed by some demented idiot.

[saynta]

by BackFromUSA » Sat 10 Aug 10:25 pm


"Because the original use of the term was definitely (and without any doubt) used in the context of that urban dictionary definition and the meaning was shared and understood by a few and repeated.

NO OTHER definition of the that term cited by you was ever used on the site.

The somewhat catchy shortening of Richo to Cho may have seemed fun and the term may have been used by some innocently.

Cho isn't banned. But using the full term is. He isn't The Richo - is he? He is Richo.

Quite simply, now when anyone uses that term it is done with the knowledge of the demeaning and disgusting nature that it was first used on this site and by using it they are condoning it's usage and that is completely unacceptable and disrespectful to Alan Richardson. It breaches the rules here regarding sexual content. It means that the writer tarnishes him with that meaning."

[degruch]

And you have been harassing me for months now on this subject . And once again you are dead wrong.

On this topic, I'm 100% right my friend...your group all but destroyed this forum over the off season with your carry on, harassing a number of posters daily from post to post. Some of them have elected to leave. You seem to wear that as a badge of honour, now you've got your way once you repeatedly report posts that upset your tender sensitivities, but didn't have a problem posting smut for everyone to see. You don't like anyone biting back when you continue to dredge up the same boring old topic, but its your bed, so I'm afraid you'll have to lay in it.

In regard to adherence to the rules, you also know you qualified for a life ban. Personally, aside from your inability to be able to copy and paste, I reckon your output has improved immensely over the season, so prefer not to see it enforced. But why you haven't learned to pull your head in when it comes to your favourite topic shows incredible arrogance, or stupidity.

Honestly, if the rule is binned, and you back off on harassing the forum, I'm sure given 'cho is no longer running the sho, the phrase will disappear and your sensitivities no longer affronted.

[BackFromUSA]

The users of that phrase in that context actually disgust me.

Yet you and your online gang have never been able to provide any shred of evidence that anyone has used it in that context...in fact, you're the only one that has, the alpha poster!

That is complete and utter bulls*** and you know it. go and ask Simon as he banned at least one poster who deliberately used the term knowing its pornographic meaning.

Simon's too busy hiding from me...he knows I'm right. It shouldn't be up to posters to police this site.

NOT hiding from you just never read this thread until now.

And you are not right.

And I find it disturbing that you feel compelled to fight to use the term now with full knowledge of the meaning and that it was used to sexually demean a decent human being who was trying to the best he could in a tough job.

How you justify this to yourself is astonishing.

And by the way you can call him Alan, Alan Richardson, Richo and EVEN Cho! So the restriction on using one particular phrase is hardly restrictive and the argument against the banned usage an obvious attempt to have the subversive usage permissible again for no mature reason.

What I find disturbing...is that a moderator would seek to openly align themselves with a gang harassing other posters over an unproven claim, provide lame excuses and technicalities as justification for not enforcing a very simple rule, and use UD as reference to back up a flimsy premise that a well known nickname is anything less...even then I'm told you had to scroll down forever to find this alleged meaning.

Overall, as we've discussed, this is less about the phrase, more about protection of posters on the forum.

If you're not hiding, respond to emails, PM's and comments.
If you're not playing favourites, don't protect select posters.
If you want rules to be adhered to, enforce them.

I appreciate it's a big job to look after a forum, but that's on you. At least you've responded for once. If you want people to believe you're the mature one, I'd suggest you stop fostering immature behaviour on here...it shouldn't be up to the forum itself to pull up the troublemakers.

OK bit by bit:

"What I find disturbing...is that a moderator would seek to openly align themselves with a gang harassing other posters over an unproven claim"

==> I am siding with nobody and made my own determination after researching posts
==> the claim is proven - I have read the now banned posters posts and there is no doubt of his intended usage

"provide lame excuses and technicalities as justification for not enforcing a very simple rule,"

==> if this references the fact that I did not ban the poster who posted the definition AND the posters who then quoted it (beforee it was removed by the original poster) then I have explained that I saw no purpose in permanently banning seven and possibly nine posters over the incident. Imagine the outcry if I did.

"and use UD as reference to back up a flimsy premise that a well known nickname is anything less...even then I'm told you had to scroll down forever to find this alleged meaning."

==> Cho is not a well known nicname nor is the other term - the well known nicname for Richardson is Richo.
==> as for finding the banned term in google - the meaning comes up immediately - no scrolling required
==> most importantly the original usage of the banned term on this site absolutly 100% was used with intent referenccing the meaning in UD

"Overall, as we've discussed, this is less about the phrase, more about protection of posters on the forum."

==> nobody is protected on this forum. if a post is reported and assessed and breaching the rules then the prescribed penalty is applied - it is ONLY then that I ever look at WHO posted the post so that I can apply the penalty

"If you're not hiding, respond to emails, PM's and comments."

==> how often do I have to repeat the same thing over and over? Has been answered many many many times. I don't owe you oranyone else any further explanation and it is a great shame that I have to waste my time on this yet again.

"If you're not playing favourites, don't protect select posters."

==> that is your perception and not a reality. You are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't make it correct.

"If you want rules to be adhered to, enforce them."

==> I do. But I sometimes try to be understanding and don't go hard ball all the time. Sometimes I hand out 1 day bans when they should be 1 week bans and 1 week bans when really they should be permanently banned ... juts so people can continue posting ... but everntually if they repeat then I am forced to take the action prescribed in the rules.

"I appreciate it's a big job to look after a forum, but that's on you. At least you've responded for once."

==> I have responded MANY times
==> I am not obliged to respond EVER time
==> The topic has been covered - please take time to read my responses AND the ruling in the admin forum

"If you want people to believe you're the mature one, I'd suggest you stop fostering immature behaviour on here...it shouldn't be up to the forum itself to pull up the troublemakers."

==> who defines the troublemakers? Are they the people that you disagree with? But they disagree with you - and think that you are the troublemakers ... so I don't judge posters like that. I judge posts not posters. If they are reported and breach an actual rule - then I apply the penalty. I am not here to control opinions or limit a poster's right to an opinion whether I garee with it or not ... however if their opinions and posts are annoying you, the forum provides you (and every poster) with the foe function.

[Devilhead]

Because Simon is pigeonholing anyone using the term as being a sexually depraved perverted scumbag

This is an open forum - well at least should be - and good posters should be given the benefit of the doubt when using the term that they are not using the term in a dodgy context - unless crazy obvious let it go

[BackFromUSA]

At this point the majority know what this term allegedly means.

Put the issue to bed by highlighting when/where this group of posters was allegedly using the term in the described context to insult Richo.

Numerous posters in this thread, one in particular laid into a bunch of us that were critical of Richo’s performance as coach for allegedly knowing what this meant and either cooperating, using or supporting its use or some other BS.

Degruch has copped it worse then anyone.

To this day, every time the question of who/when is asked, the forumites that claim to have witnessed it, including one in this thread go quiet.
Put it on the table and we’ll shut up.

It’s not fair that numerous forumites can continually claim others played a part in this without showing a shred of evidence.

BenLong#21 coined the phrase on 5 August, 2018.

This poster joined and started posting just prior to that.

The same poster posting under a different nic, had been permanetly nic banned because of vile sexual ascertions made about the coach and players.

Whilst i knew early on that BenLong#21 was that poster, my mistake was not realising earlier that BenLong#21 has using an urban dictionary phrase (in what seemed to be an innocent way) to continue his sexual degradation of the coach.

Once the connection was made, I obviously banned him and the term.

You can still search the poster's posts as both BenLong#21 and his previous nic. However some posts HAD TO be removed or severly edited to remain on the forum.

You can also search the use of the banned term using the search function on here.

However there is no doubt at all that BenLong#21 was using it because of the urban dictionary definition.

[Devilhead]

So you banned the term that 2 moral abiding UK businesses, one tv show and a Nepalese town all use sincerely and legitimately because of an obscure definition used by no one on a laughable website?

Can you see how.ridiculous this sounds?

Do.you actually think Alan would give a flying frog?

[BackFromUSA]

Because Simon is pigeonholing anyone using the term as being a sexually depraved perverted scumbag

This is an open forum - well at least should be - and good posters should be given the benefit of the doubt when using the term that they are not using the term in a dodgy context - unless crazy obvious let it go

I don't know why I bother but here goes:

"Because Simon is pigeonholing anyone using the term as being a sexually depraved perverted scumbag"

==> this is a complete falsehood
==> actually I have stated in the original ruling and most of my posts that some people innocently used the term with no malice

"This is an open forum - well at least should be - and good posters should be given the benefit of the doubt when using the term that they are not using the term in a dodgy context - unless crazy obvious let it go"

==> MANY people were given the benefit of the doubt and not banned for that reason
==> However once the meaning and intent was known - using that term is a pure endorsement of the horrific degradation
==> I have allowed the usage of the term CHO as a fair and reasonable compromise (even though his actual nicname is Richo)
==> The ONLY reason there is for anyone to use the banned term is to degrade a certain human being while hiding behind a keyboard
++> as such any usgae now results in a 1 week ban because the actual degrading sexual definition is well known and understood

[degruch]

Simon, I'd hate to think anyone believes what you've written...just swallow your pride and admit the truth:

This BenLong#21 story...it's taken a while to come out, hasn't it? Obviously the term was being used by posters prior to this alleged infringement, and not in the manner you (and the gang) accuse them of, so you really can't rest on it as an example. As an aside, you acknowledged the trolling and gang behaviour on here as obvious, and an issue, but refused to act as said posters had not specifically transgressed any rule to the letter...yet you're prepared to ban the rest of us over 'the vibe, your honour'? I've pointed out the fine detail of your ruling also means you've inappropriately banned myself and Wagga Saint recently. One rule for both parties, thanks.

Now, when you Google the phrase, UD is the first entry...then all manner of random stuff, but nothing to do with the smutty version subsequently. Reading the UD entry, I note an abbreviated version of Richo is the top meaning...but some margin. Of course, you know this, and now we all know it. Your smutty alternative has risen from 11th to 2nd on UD's list! With the endless publicity given here, I should probably be less surprised. So, did you fail to check, or altered the facts?

My perception that you play favourites on here is quite widespread. Apparently, if I repeat this enough it also becomes fact...or at least that's how you seem to judge breaches of forum rules.

This whole issue is obviously not about differing opinions, it is about your moral (possibly even legal) responsibility to protect posters on here from 'mob' behaviour. Once you foster it (and boy, have you what!), anything goes. Time to bite the bullet, stop joining in harassing posters with puerile bans, drop the ruling and move on.

[BackFromUSA]

So you banned the term that 2 moral abiding UK businesses, one tv show and a Nepalese town all use sincerely and legitimately because of an obscure definition used by no one on a laughable website?

Can you see how.ridiculous this sounds?

Do.you actually think Alan would give a flying frog?

WOW:

"So you banned the term that 2 moral abiding UK businesses, one tv show and a Nepalese town all use sincerely and legitimately because of an obscure definition used by no one on a laughable website?"

==> if THEY come here promoting their legitimate businesses / shows or townships, then I shall listento their grievences
==> the usage here was not in reference to or associated with any of the above
==> the original poster was referencing Urban Definition (your laughable website) not any of your laughable examples above

"Can you see how.ridiculous this sounds?"

==> no, because I know what the intent was of the original poster when he coined the phrase

"Do.you actually think Alan would give a flying frog?"

==> yes I do! In fact if you don't ... then I am sure you would not mind me setting up a coffee between the 3 of us where I explain to him exactly what the term means, where it originated from, who used it (and what he wrote previously) and how you advocate that faceless posters on an internet forum have the right to demean him with that term. I know someone that could set that meeting up. When are you available?

[BackFromUSA]

Simon, I'd hate to think anyone believes what you've written...just swallow your pride and admit the truth:

This BenLong#21 story...it's taken a while to come out, hasn't it? Obviously the term was being used by posters prior to this alleged infringement, and not in the manner you (and the gang) accuse them of, so you really can't rest on it as an example. As an aside, you acknowledged the trolling and gang behaviour on here as obvious, and an issue, but refused to act as said posters had not specifically transgressed any rule to the letter...yet you're prepared to ban the rest of us over 'the vibe, your honour'? I've pointed out the fine detail of your ruling also means you've inappropriately banned myself and Wagga Saint recently. One rule for both parties, thanks.

Now, when you Google the phrase, UD is the first entry...then all manner of random stuff, but nothing to do with the smutty version subsequently. Reading the UD entry, I note an abbreviated version of Richo is the top meaning...but some margin. Of course, you know this, and now we all know it. Your smutty alternative has risen from 11th to 2nd on UD's list! With the endless publicity given here, I should probably be less surprised. So, did you fail to check, or altered the facts?

My perception that you play favourites on here is quite widespread. Apparently, if I repeat this enough it also becomes fact...or at least that's how you seem to judge breaches of forum rules.

This whole issue is obviously not about differing opinions, it is about your moral (possibly even legal) responsibility to protect posters on here from 'mob' behaviour. Once you foster it (and boy, have you what!), anything goes. Time to bite the bullet, stop joining in harassing posters with puerile bans, drop the ruling and move on.

"Simon, I'd hate to think anyone believes what you've written...just swallow your pride and admit the truth:"

==> it is the truth

"This BenLong#21 story...it's taken a while to come out, hasn't it?"

==> NO. I have explained this previously. Even in the ruling itself. However many times in conversations on this topic in the forum.

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=96662

"Obviously the term was being used by posters prior to this alleged infringement, and not in the manner you (and the gang) accuse them of, so you really can't rest on it as an example."

==> NO. First usage was by BenLong#21 on August 6th, 2018. You can do your own search.

"As an aside, you acknowledged the trolling and gang behaviour on here as obvious, and an issue, but refused to act as said posters had not specifically transgressed any rule to the letter..."

==> I acknowledge nothing of the sort and I have pointed out that some posters disagree with other posters ... this does not constitute trolling if you disagree with their opinion. I do however ban genuine trollers.

"yet you're prepared to ban the rest of us over 'the vibe, your honour'? I've pointed out the fine detail of your ruling also means you've inappropriately banned myself and Wagga Saint recently. One rule for both parties, thanks."

==> so you are just an aggitated poster because you got banned fro breaching a rule. OK. Got it.

"My perception that you play favourites on here is quite widespread. Apparently, if I repeat this enough it also becomes fact...or at least that's how you seem to judge breaches of forum rules."

==> actually the moderators that have moderated with me in the past (and actually have the facts) will verify that I moderate the post and not the poster ... even when it comes to attacks on myself ... so I am not concerned what others may think, I am comforted by what I know to be true and the others armed with ALL the facts will verify.

==> if your gang thinks that I favour their gang, then imaging how pissed off the other gang are that I seem to favour your gang! They also complain that your gamg harrasses them and that I am too soft on your gangs trolling behaviour. ironic isn't it.

==> should I just ban the lot of you? I don't think so.

"This whole issue is obviously not about differing opinions, it is about your moral (possibly even legal) responsibility to protect posters on here from 'mob' behaviour."

==> The forum allows you to foe posters that you do not wish to read - take some personal responsibility and do it.
==> My responsibility is to assess reported posts and moderate them within the framework of rules of conduct and penalties

"Once you foster it (and boy, have you what!), anything goes. Time to bite the bullet, stop joining in harassing posters with puerile bans, drop the ruling and move on."

==> OK so here it becomes obvious that it is not the term itself you are fighting for, but instead your perceived injustice that you were banned for using the term.

==> Did you use the term once the meaning was known and were you fully aware of the ruling at the time? Was the ruling stated clearly on the site and made available for a sustained period to ensure that all posters were aware of the ban on the term? I believe the answer to both is yes and thus your ban was correct and justified.

[asiu]

how do we join one of these ‘gangs’ ?

[degruch]

==> it is the truth

No, it's bulls***. I think the fact you're keeping this up, in light of the fact we all know how to use the internet, is quite humorous. One could say, you are just an agitated moderator because you've been pulled up on here for numerous examples of suspiciously inconsistent treatment of posters. OK. Got it.

When it comes to my word against yours mate, I know who is correct, I can always post exerts from the PM's between us and leave the facts to others to interpret if you'd prefer? Would anyone be interested?

And yes, I'd did keep on using the old nickname after the pornographic link was posted...to be honest, I didn't bother reading it. If I'm not using it in that context, and no-one else appears to be, why should I refrain? Peer pressure? Frequent harassment? I was sure the site moderator would clear that up...I didn't expect they would actually join in. For the record, I searched references as per your suggestion, my earliest uses don't appear to show, and BenLong#21's appear pretty innocuous to be honest...are you telling me they've now been deleted?

[degruch]

how do we join one of these ‘gangs’ ?

Well, there's a very elaborate initiation ceremony for mine...seems like no-one else has managed to get past it so far! On the other side I think you just need to think positively, be a real supporter and refer to 'Alan' a lot.

[BackFromUSA]

==> it is the truth

No, it's bulls***. I think the fact you're keeping this up, in light of the fact we all know how to use the internet, is quite humorous. One could say, you are just an agitated moderator because you've been pulled up on here for numerous examples of suspiciously inconsistent treatment of posters. OK. Got it.

When it comes to my word against yours mate, I know who is correct, I can always post exerts from the PM's between us and leave the facts to others to interpret if you'd prefer? Would anyone be interested?

And yes, I'd did keep on using the old nickname after the pornographic link was posted...to be honest, I didn't bother reading it. If I'm not using it in that context, and no-one else appears to be, why should I refrain? Peer pressure? Frequent harassment? I was sure the site moderator would clear that up...I didn't expect they would actually join in. For the record, I searched references as per your suggestion, my earliest uses don't appear to show, and BenLong#21's appear pretty innocuous to be honest...are you telling me they've now been deleted?

I am not agitated nor in any way fussed with what you think or write. I am not harrassing or joing in. I ammerely responding to correct falsehoods that you have written. I am merely defending myself from your claims. I respond only to what you write.

Earliest use is August 6th by BenLong#21. Again - use the search and find any usage erlier. Do any search you want to disprove me. You claim that you can use the internet - well our search function should aid you with your endevours to find claimed earlier usage.

And while you are searching - here is a clue:

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... s#p1746218

I do not advocate reading his posts under the nic con gorozidis. And having just visited it myself to create the link, I can see that I didn't manage to edit or delete ALL of the offensive posts. Given they have stayed up for a year, I won't edit or delete them now.

Please re-read the post in this thread to again explain the sequence of events.

by BackFromUSA » 10 Aug 2019, 23:25
BenLong#21 coined the phrase on 5 August, 2018.

This poster joined and started posting just prior to that.

The same poster posting under a different nic, had been permanetly nic banned because of vile sexual ascertions made about the coach and players.

Whilst i knew early on that BenLong#21 was that poster, my mistake was not realising earlier that BenLong#21 has using an urban dictionary phrase (in what seemed to be an innocent way) to continue his sexual degradation of the coach.

Once the connection was made, I obviously banned him and the term.

You can still search the poster's posts as both BenLong#21 and his previous nic. However some posts HAD TO be removed or severly edited to remain on the forum.

You can also search the use of the banned term using the search function on here.

However there is no doubt at all that BenLong#21 was using it because of the urban dictionary definition.

[degruch]

==> it is the truth

No, it's bulls***. I think the fact you're keeping this up, in light of the fact we all know how to use the internet, is quite humorous. One could say, you are just an agitated moderator because you've been pulled up on here for numerous examples of suspiciously inconsistent treatment of posters. OK. Got it.

When it comes to my word against yours mate, I know who is correct, I can always post exerts from the PM's between us and leave the facts to others to interpret if you'd prefer? Would anyone be interested?

And yes, I'd did keep on using the old nickname after the pornographic link was posted...to be honest, I didn't bother reading it. If I'm not using it in that context, and no-one else appears to be, why should I refrain? Peer pressure? Frequent harassment? I was sure the site moderator would clear that up...I didn't expect they would actually join in. For the record, I searched references as per your suggestion, my earliest uses don't appear to show, and BenLong#21's appear pretty innocuous to be honest...are you telling me they've now been deleted?

I am not agitated nor in any way fussed with what you think or write. I am not harrassing or joing in. I ammerely responding to correct falsehoods that you have written. I am merely defending myself from your claims. I respond only to what you write.

Earliest use is August 6th by BenLong#21. Again - use the search and find any usage erlier. Do any search you want to disprove me. You claim that you can use the internet - well our search function should aid you with your endevours to find claimed earlier usage.

And while you are searching - here is a clue:

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... s#p1746218

I do not advocate reading his posts under the nic con gorozidis

Please re-read the post in this thread to again explain the sequence of events.

by BackFromUSA » 10 Aug 2019, 23:25
BenLong#21 coined the phrase on 5 August, 2018.

This poster joined and started posting just prior to that.

The same poster posting under a different nic, had been permanetly nic banned because of vile sexual ascertions made about the coach and players.

Whilst i knew early on that BenLong#21 was that poster, my mistake was not realising earlier that BenLong#21 has using an urban dictionary phrase (in what seemed to be an innocent way) to continue his sexual degradation of the coach.

Once the connection was made, I obviously banned him and the term.

You can still search the poster's posts as both BenLong#21 and his previous nic. However some posts HAD TO be removed or severly edited to remain on the forum.

You can also search the use of the banned term using the search function on here.

However there is no doubt at all that BenLong#21 was using it because of the urban dictionary definition.

I've already done a search, as per above, I know what I and other posters can see...the only thing that is missing is your claim. Yes, Con went off the rails, and had been posting increasingly higher pornographic clap trap over a period of months...so its probably no wonder there's some outraged posters on here, given we've been accused of doing the same. However, as BenLong#21 I just have to take your word (your word is not looking so great at the moment, to be brutally honest), as what I can see is pretty harmless.

In any case, here's the unequivocally most popular UD definition for you:

nickname of people with surname "Richardson"; shortened version of another nicname "RiCHO"

I think the fact that it was posted by 'S. Duper' late last year is a tad suspicious, lol, however, it has achieved a much higher score over 12 months than the ridiculous (and also recently elevated) smutty variant has over 12 years. I know this is how you rate the importance of an issue, so there you have it. I'm afraid you'll have to back down on your allegations that everyone with a mate called Richo must be a pervert if they address them as anything less.

IMO, the best way to address this issue is to remove the ruling, it would send a positive message to the forum and show some strong leadership.

[Special]

your special mate Stinger

was thinking the same thing myself

haha

stinger supposedly doesn’t post here anymore according to saynta

[BackFromUSA]

==> it is the truth

No, it's bulls***. I think the fact you're keeping this up, in light of the fact we all know how to use the internet, is quite humorous. One could say, you are just an agitated moderator because you've been pulled up on here for numerous examples of suspiciously inconsistent treatment of posters. OK. Got it.

When it comes to my word against yours mate, I know who is correct, I can always post exerts from the PM's between us and leave the facts to others to interpret if you'd prefer? Would anyone be interested?

And yes, I'd did keep on using the old nickname after the pornographic link was posted...to be honest, I didn't bother reading it. If I'm not using it in that context, and no-one else appears to be, why should I refrain? Peer pressure? Frequent harassment? I was sure the site moderator would clear that up...I didn't expect they would actually join in. For the record, I searched references as per your suggestion, my earliest uses don't appear to show, and BenLong#21's appear pretty innocuous to be honest...are you telling me they've now been deleted?

I am not agitated nor in any way fussed with what you think or write. I am not harrassing or joing in. I ammerely responding to correct falsehoods that you have written. I am merely defending myself from your claims. I respond only to what you write.

Earliest use is August 6th by BenLong#21. Again - use the search and find any usage erlier. Do any search you want to disprove me. You claim that you can use the internet - well our search function should aid you with your endevours to find claimed earlier usage.

And while you are searching - here is a clue:

http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... s#p1746218

I do not advocate reading his posts under the nic con gorozidis

Please re-read the post in this thread to again explain the sequence of events.

by BackFromUSA » 10 Aug 2019, 23:25
BenLong#21 coined the phrase on 5 August, 2018.

This poster joined and started posting just prior to that.

The same poster posting under a different nic, had been permanetly nic banned because of vile sexual ascertions made about the coach and players.

Whilst i knew early on that BenLong#21 was that poster, my mistake was not realising earlier that BenLong#21 has using an urban dictionary phrase (in what seemed to be an innocent way) to continue his sexual degradation of the coach.

Once the connection was made, I obviously banned him and the term.

You can still search the poster's posts as both BenLong#21 and his previous nic. However some posts HAD TO be removed or severly edited to remain on the forum.

You can also search the use of the banned term using the search function on here.

However there is no doubt at all that BenLong#21 was using it because of the urban dictionary definition.

I've already done a search, as per above, I know what I and other posters can see...the only thing that is missing is your claim. Yes, Con went off the rails, and had been posting increasingly higher pornographic clap trap over a period of months...so its probably no wonder there's some outraged posters on here, given we've been accused of doing the same. However, as BenLong#21 I just have to take your word (your word is not looking so great at the moment, to be brutally honest), as what I can see is pretty harmless.

In any case, here's the unequivocally most popular UD definition for you:

nickname of people with surname "Richardson"; shortened version of another nicname "RiCHO"

I think the fact that it was posted by 'S. Duper' late last year is a tad suspicious, lol, however, it has achieved a much higher score over 12 months than the ridiculous (and also recently elevated) smutty variant has over 12 years. I know this is how you rate the importance of an issue, so there you have it. I'm afraid you'll have to back down on your allegations that everyone with a mate called Richo must be a pervert if they address them as anything less.

IMO, the best way to address this issue is to remove the ruling, it would send a positive message to the forum and show some strong leadership.

I get it.

You don’t like my ruling.

You are aggrieved by it.

Intent of usage is the issue and you know it and you ignore it. Con / Ben started to use the urban dictionary term to hide his sexually charged tirades against the coach. Some followed knowingly. Some unknowingly as already stated.

Just because superduper from this forum added an alternate definition to the original 2007 definition does not alter that the original August 6th 2018 usage by Ben / Con was the disgusting sexual meaning outlined in urban dictionary.

Feel free like everyone else to use the term Cho or even Richo.

And any argument that Richo has a negative sexual definition because a couple of Aussies have recently posted so in order to rib their mates Richo (and no doubt shared their posted definitions on social media amongst friends) does nothing for your argument as it is my strong belief that nobody intended to sexual degrade the coach by calling him Richo. The opposite is true for the banned term. No everyone who used it to degrade the coach BUT others definitely did.

Feel the need to use the banned term, then do the prescribed penalty.

That’s the decision.

It isn’t ever changing.

Your desire to use the banned term really doesn’t reflect particularly well on you in my honest opinion. Why anyone would feel it is appropriate to denigrate another well meaning human being with that term is completely beyond me. But then again people do many bad things.

However laws exist in society and on this forum to create fairness and order and to protect those who cannot protect themselves necessarily.

The law is never perfect and justice isn’t always served but the laws remain.

The rule remains.

That is my final correspondence on the matter.

[fugazi]

Thank God there's a footy game today.

[asiu]

i’ve formally applied to theirs

https://youtu.be/XgvR3y5JCXg


are there goats involved in yours ?

i’ve got another application form

[asiu]

your special mate Stinger

was thinking the same thing myself

haha

stinger supposedly doesn’t post here anymore according to saynta

hey bloke

nuh
old mate has left us

no access to the General Forum broke his heart

he turned 74 last week
hope he had a good one

[degruch]

So you banned the term that 2 moral abiding UK businesses, one tv show and a Nepalese town all use sincerely and legitimately because of an obscure definition used by no one on a laughable website?

Can you see how.ridiculous this sounds?

Do.you actually think Alan would give a flying frog?

WOW:

"So you banned the term that 2 moral abiding UK businesses, one tv show and a Nepalese town all use sincerely and legitimately because of an obscure definition used by no one on a laughable website?"

==> if THEY come here promoting their legitimate businesses / shows or townships, then I shall listento their grievences
==> the usage here was not in reference to or associated with any of the above
==> the original poster was referencing Urban Definition (your laughable website) not any of your laughable examples above

"Can you see how.ridiculous this sounds?"

==> no, because I know what the intent was of the original poster when he coined the phrase

"Do.you actually think Alan would give a flying frog?"

==> yes I do! In fact if you don't ... then I am sure you would not mind me setting up a coffee between the 3 of us where I explain to him exactly what the term means, where it originated from, who used it (and what he wrote previously) and how you advocate that faceless posters on an internet forum have the right to demean him with that term. I know someone that could set that meeting up. When are you available?

LOL...I just noticed this...do it man, cover yourself in glory! I'm sure he'd love to have the faceless overlord of an obscure fan page contacting him to discuss nicknames, there'd be nothing he'd rather do.

[degruch]

i’ve formally applied to theirs

https://youtu.be/XgvR3y5JCXg


are there goats involved in yours ?

i’ve got another application form

You dirty double agent!!!