| Let’s not forget about Ntcham 23:16 - Jul 2 with 11835 views | KeithHaynes |
A real talent and head and shoulders above the majority of the championship. |  |
| |  |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 21:59 - Jul 3 with 1688 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 21:57 - Jul 3 by Chief |
I wasn't offended by them at all, some were my own posts. |
Then there must have been a reason for their removal. And any others, the content of which I am unaware of, and tbh the fact they were removed I support wholeheartedly. As I said it shows how well the site is being managed. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:07 - Jul 3 with 1675 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 21:59 - Jul 3 by KeithHaynes |
Then there must have been a reason for their removal. And any others, the content of which I am unaware of, and tbh the fact they were removed I support wholeheartedly. As I said it shows how well the site is being managed. |
Funnily enough an opportunity to demonstrate how well the site is being managed has just arisen. |  |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:49 - Jul 3 with 1639 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:07 - Jul 3 by Chief |
Funnily enough an opportunity to demonstrate how well the site is being managed has just arisen. |
And it was 👠| |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:54 - Jul 3 with 1624 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:49 - Jul 3 by KeithHaynes |
And it was 👠|
Was what? Managed well? | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 07:59 - Jul 4 with 1545 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:49 - Jul 3 by KeithHaynes |
And it was 👠|
What was the full extent of the management of the incident?
How did it manifest itself?
Few posts deleted and a thread locked? Anything more? | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 12:57 - Jul 4 with 1445 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 07:59 - Jul 4 by Chief |
What was the full extent of the management of the incident?
How did it manifest itself?
Few posts deleted and a thread locked? Anything more? |
On the thread it self Ntcham is in training today.
In answer to you chief ( and others who care ) both you and Resloven have traded insults and some very competitive debate over the trust. The comment he made wasn’t racist, but was yet another insult as to your perspective on trust matters. The posts were removed by moderators on here. What they were I do not know but I support their decision.
This thread as some do … was hijacked by the trust debate between you and Resloven. We are more than happy for both of your informed opinions to be held on here. Generally you both stick to the site guidelines. However, I will say not that many find the conversations of that interest, but that’s not a criteria for posting.
This site is protected by people with an interest in the wider picture of the sites existence. At times others with a hate agenda towards this site pick up on threads and posts ( thanks for the clicks although you have no idea how funds are raised here ) and then twist them on social media and elsewhere. This is purely down to their specific hatred towards one or two posters who remain on here post Phil leaving. They use a misplaced word to increase the hatred and endorse their agenda.
These people are the very worst the internet can boast. They survive on hate and don’t care what they affect by being as they are. Hiding behind a keyboard or other things that protect them is pathetic. We’ve exposed that this year by posting where we are, when and how they can meet us personally. Odd that they didn’t appear ? That’s how delicate managing this site is. And how far we will go to manage their abuse.
This site is managed well, it isn’t afraid to ban people as we have already displayed, and will always take that stance. We don’t need agitators, the sites increased volume even in closed season is incredibly good. If you are not happy with the decision to ban or not then all I can say is the decision was made in the best interests of the site, not you or anybody else. If your take on something is different to someone else’s, then there’s nothing more we can do to appease you. I thought it was resolved correctly. As I’ve always said you are a valued poster who has contributed here for a very long time. We hope that continues.
On the subject matter of what we put on the site via our news items etc, we won’t be dictated to by anyone regards the content of the story, the people involved nor the opinion. What other people think elsewhere as to what we report is of no consequence. We couldn’t care. We deliver a very decent free news service on Swansea City matters, we have people who have the ability to write articles that go deeper and far more inquisitively than anywhere else. We source and manage information from many different areas. The real issue is that nobody does it any better. That’s why we are the success we are.
And of course why the green eyes monsters continue to exist.
With that proven and in place the decision to report on any Swansea city matter is ours nobody else. Especially when the work put in to that is not a few words on Twitter. We don’t hide behind social media accounts that are protected so a certain few can continue with their bullying and pathetic comments. Despite the fact of course we receive them all, it’s hilarious. And the fact people are allowed to continue their disgusting abuse of many others behind these protected accounts tells us just how cowardly they are.
We are an open and transparent news service that people can read ‘openly’ without sanction. They can choose to have an opinion or they don’t, that’s again of no concern to us. Adult debate is beyond a number of people. So again with regards as an example to todays supporters trust story, it’s there because we decided to go with it, that’s our prerogative. And that will continue as long as I run and own this site.
For me, that’s it, I’ve other things to be getting on with.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 13:06 - Jul 4 with 1402 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 12:57 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
On the thread it self Ntcham is in training today.
In answer to you chief ( and others who care ) both you and Resloven have traded insults and some very competitive debate over the trust. The comment he made wasn’t racist, but was yet another insult as to your perspective on trust matters. The posts were removed by moderators on here. What they were I do not know but I support their decision.
This thread as some do … was hijacked by the trust debate between you and Resloven. We are more than happy for both of your informed opinions to be held on here. Generally you both stick to the site guidelines. However, I will say not that many find the conversations of that interest, but that’s not a criteria for posting.
This site is protected by people with an interest in the wider picture of the sites existence. At times others with a hate agenda towards this site pick up on threads and posts ( thanks for the clicks although you have no idea how funds are raised here ) and then twist them on social media and elsewhere. This is purely down to their specific hatred towards one or two posters who remain on here post Phil leaving. They use a misplaced word to increase the hatred and endorse their agenda.
These people are the very worst the internet can boast. They survive on hate and don’t care what they affect by being as they are. Hiding behind a keyboard or other things that protect them is pathetic. We’ve exposed that this year by posting where we are, when and how they can meet us personally. Odd that they didn’t appear ? That’s how delicate managing this site is. And how far we will go to manage their abuse.
This site is managed well, it isn’t afraid to ban people as we have already displayed, and will always take that stance. We don’t need agitators, the sites increased volume even in closed season is incredibly good. If you are not happy with the decision to ban or not then all I can say is the decision was made in the best interests of the site, not you or anybody else. If your take on something is different to someone else’s, then there’s nothing more we can do to appease you. I thought it was resolved correctly. As I’ve always said you are a valued poster who has contributed here for a very long time. We hope that continues.
On the subject matter of what we put on the site via our news items etc, we won’t be dictated to by anyone regards the content of the story, the people involved nor the opinion. What other people think elsewhere as to what we report is of no consequence. We couldn’t care. We deliver a very decent free news service on Swansea City matters, we have people who have the ability to write articles that go deeper and far more inquisitively than anywhere else. We source and manage information from many different areas. The real issue is that nobody does it any better. That’s why we are the success we are.
And of course why the green eyes monsters continue to exist.
With that proven and in place the decision to report on any Swansea city matter is ours nobody else. Especially when the work put in to that is not a few words on Twitter. We don’t hide behind social media accounts that are protected so a certain few can continue with their bullying and pathetic comments. Despite the fact of course we receive them all, it’s hilarious. And the fact people are allowed to continue their disgusting abuse of many others behind these protected accounts tells us just how cowardly they are.
We are an open and transparent news service that people can read ‘openly’ without sanction. They can choose to have an opinion or they don’t, that’s again of no concern to us. Adult debate is beyond a number of people. So again with regards as an example to todays supporters trust story, it’s there because we decided to go with it, that’s our prerogative. And that will continue as long as I run and own this site.
For me, that’s it, I’ve other things to be getting on with.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
"The comment he made wasn’t racist"
Well you say you didn't read the post so I don't know how you can say that,
but that wasn't even complaint anyway!
To repeat it was Resloven who randomly accused me of being racist telling me to "clear my mind of prejudices against race and creed". Which is objectively accusing me of being racist without any justification.
So to confirm, in the spirit of transparency the only action taken is to delete a few posts and to lock that one thread? Is that the extent of it? | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:31 - Jul 4 with 1259 views | onehunglow |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 13:06 - Jul 4 by Chief |
"The comment he made wasn’t racist"
Well you say you didn't read the post so I don't know how you can say that,
but that wasn't even complaint anyway!
To repeat it was Resloven who randomly accused me of being racist telling me to "clear my mind of prejudices against race and creed". Which is objectively accusing me of being racist without any justification.
So to confirm, in the spirit of transparency the only action taken is to delete a few posts and to lock that one thread? Is that the extent of it? |
To be independent and candid ,I have accused of Res being racist although it now covers a multitude of terms ,
His assault on English people has been well ott, but not as bad as Tramps
It’s important to have chums in high places |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:36 - Jul 4 with 1250 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 13:06 - Jul 4 by Chief |
"The comment he made wasn’t racist"
Well you say you didn't read the post so I don't know how you can say that,
but that wasn't even complaint anyway!
To repeat it was Resloven who randomly accused me of being racist telling me to "clear my mind of prejudices against race and creed". Which is objectively accusing me of being racist without any justification.
So to confirm, in the spirit of transparency the only action taken is to delete a few posts and to lock that one thread? Is that the extent of it? |
I amended that post after you reported it.
I didn’t see the replies before. Please read what is said.
Maybe Resloven can come ion here and be adult about what you felt he said compared to what he meant ? | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:44 - Jul 4 with 1237 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:36 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
I amended that post after you reported it.
I didn’t see the replies before. Please read what is said.
Maybe Resloven can come ion here and be adult about what you felt he said compared to what he meant ? |
I did read what was written. My response was sufficiently appropriate. There was nothing at all in previous replies that should have even remotely prompted Resloven to suggest what they did.
And no doubt they'll concoct some other fantasy to try and justify their nonsense but what they said was pretty clear. There is no other way to interpret it.
So are a few deleted posts and a locked thread the extent of the recourse? | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:46 - Jul 4 with 1228 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:44 - Jul 4 by Chief |
I did read what was written. My response was sufficiently appropriate. There was nothing at all in previous replies that should have even remotely prompted Resloven to suggest what they did.
And no doubt they'll concoct some other fantasy to try and justify their nonsense but what they said was pretty clear. There is no other way to interpret it.
So are a few deleted posts and a locked thread the extent of the recourse? |
I’ve asked him to explain. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:55 - Jul 4 with 1197 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:46 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
I’ve asked him to explain. |
Resloven is a male then.
You'll get nothing of substance. Last night they stated they did 'nothing of the sort'. So they are in denial. As they are on a variety of other matters. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:03 - Jul 4 with 1181 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:46 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
I’ve asked him to explain. |
I asked Chief to clear his head of all prejudices to come to unbiased posting. This is in generally a good way of behaving. That is it. I did not accuse Chief of anything. |  |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:05 - Jul 4 with 1175 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 19:55 - Jul 4 by Chief |
Resloven is a male then.
You'll get nothing of substance. Last night they stated they did 'nothing of the sort'. So they are in denial. As they are on a variety of other matters. |
He could be a green tube inserted in to a yellow bucket made of apples and cheese, I’ve no idea. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:15 - Jul 4 with 1129 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:03 - Jul 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I asked Chief to clear his head of all prejudices to come to unbiased posting. This is in generally a good way of behaving. That is it. I did not accuse Chief of anything. |
You specifically listed race and creed amongst the prejudices I supposedly need to clear my head of.
Which by definition you are alleging that I do have racial prejudices in my head. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:36 - Jul 4 with 1083 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:15 - Jul 4 by Chief |
You specifically listed race and creed amongst the prejudices I supposedly need to clear my head of.
Which by definition you are alleging that I do have racial prejudices in my head. |
I will concur that needs clarification Resloven. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:38 - Jul 4 with 1067 views | onehunglow |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:15 - Jul 4 by Chief |
You specifically listed race and creed amongst the prejudices I supposedly need to clear my head of.
Which by definition you are alleging that I do have racial prejudices in my head. |
Might be an idea to call it quits.
That said,I’ve tried it but it didn’t work. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:13 - Jul 4 with 976 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 20:36 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
I will concur that needs clarification Resloven. |
Keith,
We are all prejudiced in one degree or another except perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Definition of prejudice is:-
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"
Is this statement an accusation of anything in your opinion?.
(Chief clear your head of "preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience"). This does not presuppose anything. The word "need" was not used.
Interestingly google refers the the word "Yank" as informal / derogatory. It is probably mild enough not to be of a concern. Sheep slurs are illegal and have led to convictions. [Post edited 4 Jul 2022 22:14]
| |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:22 - Jul 4 with 965 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:13 - Jul 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Keith,
We are all prejudiced in one degree or another except perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Definition of prejudice is:-
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"
Is this statement an accusation of anything in your opinion?.
(Chief clear your head of "preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience"). This does not presuppose anything. The word "need" was not used.
Interestingly google refers the the word "Yank" as informal / derogatory. It is probably mild enough not to be of a concern. Sheep slurs are illegal and have led to convictions. [Post edited 4 Jul 2022 22:14]
|
Keith I did warn you that this space cadet would reply with couple and utter gibberish. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:49 - Jul 4 with 931 views | KeithHaynes |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:13 - Jul 4 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Keith,
We are all prejudiced in one degree or another except perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Definition of prejudice is:-
"preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"
Is this statement an accusation of anything in your opinion?.
(Chief clear your head of "preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience"). This does not presuppose anything. The word "need" was not used.
Interestingly google refers the the word "Yank" as informal / derogatory. It is probably mild enough not to be of a concern. Sheep slurs are illegal and have led to convictions. [Post edited 4 Jul 2022 22:14]
|
Looking at what you said, is there some leeway for you to review that and possibly explain your intention ? Sticking specifically to the post. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 09:37 - Jul 5 with 825 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 22:49 - Jul 4 by KeithHaynes |
Looking at what you said, is there some leeway for you to review that and possibly explain your intention ? Sticking specifically to the post. |
I advised Chief to give the US Owners a fair hearing without preconceived opinions that is not based on reason or actual experience.
The US people are soon to invest and deserve some credit based on their actions. Years of propaganda need to put to one side. | |
| Wise sage since Toshack era |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 10:45 - Jul 5 with 805 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 09:37 - Jul 5 by ReslovenSwan1 |
I advised Chief to give the US Owners a fair hearing without preconceived opinions that is not based on reason or actual experience.
The US people are soon to invest and deserve some credit based on their actions. Years of propaganda need to put to one side. |
Although there's zero evidence that anything I say about them is based on their nationality and i always refer to them as Americans not yanks.
Plus you didn't specify in your original comment anything about my prejudices being towards the Americans. They've promised investment for nearly 2 years. I base my opinions on facts.
You just randomly said it.
So a nonsense cop out. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 11:23 - Jul 5 with 774 views | Fireboy2 |
I tapped into this topic to read about ntcham only to see the love in between chief and res STILL going on 🙄 |  | | |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 11:29 - Jul 5 with 771 views | Chief |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 11:23 - Jul 5 by Fireboy2 |
I tapped into this topic to read about ntcham only to see the love in between chief and res STILL going on 🙄 |
I suggest you take it up with Keith, who on fairness to Resloven was asked on thread to clarify their accusation. | |
| |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 13:57 - Jul 5 with 722 views | onehunglow |
| Let’s not forget about Ntcham on 11:23 - Jul 5 by Fireboy2 |
I tapped into this topic to read about ntcham only to see the love in between chief and res STILL going on 🙄 |
So what opinions do you have regarding the thread. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
