Insights into the mind of ‘cho’

[saynta]

Get a life people and move on. Nothing to see here. Some posters are like a dog with a f****** bone.

...says the poster who raised it in the first place, and most likely dobbed on the OP. Can you tell us again what we're all supposedly saying when we use a popular nickname for our ex-choach?

Wrong again. You are making a habit of it. I didn't dob on the original poster. Can't even tell you who it was but he/she wasn't the only one,

According to Simon, the original author was banned. And contrary to the s*** posted on here by the bone worriers, Simon was well aware of the meaning of the very offensive term.

And while we are talking about dobbers, how many times have you tried to get me banned?

3
Try? Have I? Do I need to try? You've more than qualified for a life ban...rules are rules, you brought the supposed term to the forum, and the ban should be issued.

Crap. You are trying to rewrite history.

*cough* Got any proof I'm wrong? I know, I know...proofs not your thing...better to make it up and cry wolf.

As I posted before . Yawn.

I don't even know why I am responding to you. Forthe tecord,

I didn't bring the term to the forum and i have never used that disgusting phrase other than to highlight its obscene meaning that was being directed at our coach.
The users of that phrase in that context actually disgust me.

[Jacks Back]

Someone cried to Mummy and said it’s in the UD.

Mummy learnt something as did most of us on here and made shyte up on the run to suit an agenda.

I agree it’s madness but we are all forbidden to financially contribute to this site so have been blocked out of having real say.

There were a few posters who knew the term was offensive including Simon.

If I was Simon I wouldn't take any money from you either.

Accusing Simon of making shyte up on the run is pretty offensive.

A couple of posters including you are carrying on about ths issue like two year olds who can't get their own way.

f****** pathetic really.

I, for one, had no idea what you were talking about so I looked it up. It was one of many names/phrases on there and sounded utterly ridiculous. And yet the term is banned on here. What a load of codswallop!

[degruch]

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!

[saynta]

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.

[degruch]

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.

[saynta]

Go away FFS Geez. Talk about being f****** obsessed.

I am finished with this thread and the rubbish posted by users who have had one of their toys taken away from them.

[degruch]

Go away FFS Geez. Talk about being f****** obsessed.

I am finished with this thread and the rubbish posted by users who have had one of their toys taken away from them.

Are you sure you're sick of 'the rubbish'? I know it's many months after you were first asked to prove your claims (and subsequent posting of a pornographic link), but you seem to be quite interested in it here on the first page:

How do you get away with using a banned phrase in a heading?

[Devilhead]

One thing I do know is that The Credit Hire Organisation happily use the phrase - so did Margaret Cho - no doubt she is a pervy old lady

[sunsaint]

The saynta has a chicken on one hand and the egg in the other and still can't work out where the s*** came from or the order that it happened

[B.M]

God this is a rubbish thread, absolute garbage written.

[asiu]

the rooster came first
... i know that bit

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

Term is banned by the boss that runs this joint.

Move on. Get over it.

Thank god that you post here ted.

Ditto for you Saynta. Someone has to keep 'em honest on here!

Careful though...we will now be accused of being the same poster. We apparently have have about eight laptops, three mobiles and ten tablets all connected to different providers whilst using VPN's from every continent on Earth. That is how we get away with it and the mod can't track us!

[BackFromUSA]

How do you get away with using a banned phrase in a heading?

Not sure but below are some examples as to why the banning of the phrase is utterly ridiculous

https://thecho.co.uk

http://www.the-cho.org.uk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thecho

As I said completely and utterly ridiculous

Yet still no comment on the above regarding legitimate businesses using the said term openly and freely

It proves that the ban in place is beyond ridiculous and idiotic in the extreme

The original usage of that term by a poster had nothing to do with those meanings or organisations and everything to do with the urban dictionary meaning as it was amidst a continual stream of sexual innuendo and statements regarding the coach and certain players. This poster was banned. The term was continued on as a subversive testimony to that poster by some and innocently by others. The term was banned once the meaning was known. Give it up. Nothing is going to change. All is explained clearly in the ruling now in the Admin forum.

[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!

This is false. The original user of the term used it in that context but it flew under the radar for a long time because very few understood why he was calling Richo Cho but given his sexually laced accusations and diatribe directed at the time there is zero doubt of his intent.

[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.

[BackFromUSA]

Someone cried to Mummy and said it’s in the UD.

Mummy learnt something as did most of us on here and made shyte up on the run to suit an agenda.

I agree it’s madness but we are all forbidden to financially contribute to this site so have been blocked out of having real say.

I also feel compelled to dismiss this falsehood.

User contributions ceased well before I got involved.

Even when there were user contributions the sites was still owned by an individual (who still owns it) and allows others to administer it so it continues - with his blessing.

He ultimately has the right to take back control of the site at any time.

BUT this is the most important thing - I did not take away the right for posters to contribute to the running of this site. That was the decision of the site owner / admins before me. The site when I took over was paid for by another individual out of his generosity when the contributed funds ran out. I just swapped my credit card for his when he no longer wanted to do so and that was after I had started as admin. Ultimately that is the way it shall continue. Why? Because you can never let the inmates run the asylum and if we did the place would get shut down by either the AFL or the courts. That’s why.

[sunsaint]

if we evntually find another parkeysainter alias here that goes by The Akansas Kid handle
All will be explained

[Special]

Someone cried to Mummy and said it’s in the UD.

Mummy learnt something as did most of us on here and made shyte up on the run to suit an agenda.

I agree it’s madness but we are all forbidden to financially contribute to this site so have been blocked out of having real say.

I also feel compelled to dismiss this falsehood.

User contributions ceased well before I got involved.

Even when there were user contributions the sites was still owned by an individual (who still owns it) and allows others to administer it so it continues - with his blessing.

He ultimately has the right to take back control of the site at any time.

BUT this is the most important thing - I did not take away the right for posters to contribute to the running of this site. That was the decision of the site owner / admins before me. The site when I took over was paid for by another individual out of his generosity when the contributed funds ran out. I just swapped my credit card for his when he no longer wanted to do so and that was after I had started as admin. Ultimately that is the way it shall continue. Why? Because you can never let the inmates run the asylum and if we did the place would get shut down by either the AFL or the courts. That’s why.

Ok thanks for the explanation. You could actually set up a system so us mentally deranged idiots can contribute but you have power of veto over the full running of the show so to speak so it doesn’t get shut down as you are fearful of.

I’m sure that is possible.

Whilst I strongly disagree with certain aspects of your total control, I still use the site and feel some obligation to contribute to the running of it.

Maybe others feel the same.

Maybe if there were a significant number of us contributing things would be a bit different

[Devilhead]

But why is the Urban Dictionary definition which you refer to (which is one of a couple) so much more important than any other usage of the term?

Surely the businesses legitimately using the term outweigh some made up definition by a complete unknown in some hick town

[BackFromUSA]

But why is the Urban Dictionary definition which you refer to (which is one of a couple) so much more important than any other usage of the term?

Surely the businesses legitimately using the term outweigh some made up definition by a complete unknown in some hick town

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.

[saynta]

Term is banned by the boss that runs this joint.

Move on. Get over it.

Thank god that you post here ted.

Ditto for you Saynta. Someone has to keep 'em honest on here!

Careful though...we will now be accused of being the same poster. We apparently have have about eight laptops, three mobiles and ten tablets all connected to different providers whilst using VPN's from every continent on Earth. That is how we get away with it and the mod can't track us!

[saynta]

Someone cried to Mummy and said it’s in the UD.

Mummy learnt something as did most of us on here and made shyte up on the run to suit an agenda.

I agree it’s madness but we are all forbidden to financially contribute to this site so have been blocked out of having real say.

I also feel compelled to dismiss this falsehood.

User contributions ceased well before I got involved.

Even when there were user contributions the sites was still owned by an individual (who still owns it) and allows others to administer it so it continues - with his blessing.

He ultimately has the right to take back control of the site at any time.

BUT this is the most important thing - I did not take away the right for posters to contribute to the running of this site. That was the decision of the site owner / admins before me. The site when I took over was paid for by another individual out of his generosity when the contributed funds ran out. I just swapped my credit card for his when he no longer wanted to do so and that was after I had started as admin. Ultimately that is the way it shall continue. Why? Because you can never let the inmates run the asylum and if we did the place would get shut down by either the AFL or the courts. That’s why.

Ok thanks for the explanation. You could actually set up a system so us mentally deranged idiots can contribute but you have power of veto over the full running of the show so to speak so it doesn’t get shut down as you are fearful of.

I’m sure that is possible.

Whilst I strongly disagree with certain aspects of your total control, I still use the site and feel some obligation to contribute to the running of it.

Maybe others feel the same.

Maybe if there were a significant number of us contributing things would be a bit different

Ah I just realized who you are. Silly me.

Your post gave you away.

[saynta]

But why is the Urban Dictionary definition which you refer to (which is one of a couple) so much more important than any other usage of the term?

Surely the businesses legitimately using the term outweigh some made up definition by a complete unknown in some hick town

"some made up definition by a complete unknown in some hick town"

Making up stories again I see. You have no idea where the definition originated.

Go on admit it

[degruch]

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.

[saynta]

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.