F.A.O. Lynchbhoy - The "Little Jack Horner" of the GAA Board

[Evil Genius]

That post there must have took a hour to write.....

Just because it took you an hour to read*, don't assume the rest of us move at your pace...

* - Is the tip of your finger getting sore? 

I move at my own pace!! Never hurried or rushed.....

Does this mean you weren't offended by the "personal abusive" nature of my post, Pat?

Fair play to ye (though Saffron Sam 2 will be disappointed in your failing to maintain solidarity with all those oppressed by the big, bad Evil One's posts...)

[Main Street]

Neither was "banned". Neither was "kicked off". And neither was "denied access" on account of who they are (as you were clearly implying). Nor did you allude to the possibility of "innocent causes".

Reasonable doubt, which protects the innocent from cynical slurs.
My past form supports my record of leaving small letterboxes in doors to be flapped open, to account for a range of innocent possibilities as causes for events.

[Evil Genius]

Neither was "banned". Neither was "kicked off". And neither was "denied access" on account of who they are (as you were clearly implying). Nor did you allude to the possibility of "innocent causes".

Reasonable doubt, which protects the innocent from cynical slurs.
My past form supports my record of leaving small letterboxes in doors to be flapped open, to account for a range of innocent possibilities as causes for events.

So you want us to ignore the claimed "banned", "kicked-off" and even "denied access", whilst you rely on the possibility of "innocent causes" then, eh? That's "innocent causes" to which you didn't allude even obliquely, as is your wont.

Sorry, MS, but no amount of flim-flam about "small letter-boxes" and "flaps" etc will disguise the message you were clearly trying to send: namely, that OWC was discriminating against ordinary people like Ziggy and Jim, for no other reason than that they were GAA-types etc.

Whereas, as the thread in question clearly demonstrated, there was no such "conspiracy", merely a simple misunderstanding.

Still, at least Ziggy and Jim were entirely gracious about their mistake, unlike you. More to the point, they didn't repeat it, unlike you...

Anyhow, any chance of you revealing the "common phrase" which betrays Myles Na G's hidden Unionist sympathies? Or do I/him/we have to wait for Little Jack Lynchbhoy to unveil it for us all to marvel at? 

(No hurry, btw, since I'm now due for my usual Friday evening appointment with a bottle - or two - of wine.)

[saffron sam2]

I don't know if EG and Myles are one and the same, but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Both have used a phrase that I have only ever seen or heard on this board - even then it has only be used by two posters, EG and Myles.

What is that phrase?

The phrase shall remain undisclosed for now. If I was to disclose the phrase it would simply give you another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance in the art of googling.

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=9862.30

When both of you use the phrase again, I may tell you.

So you refer to an unspecified "phrase" to back up some point you are making, then when asked to state what it is, you decline, citing something vague about Googling.   Sounds to me like you're a graduate of the "Main Street School of Internet Debating", with all the credibility that that confers.  

The reference about googling isn't vague. Had you clicked on the link it would have shown where you proved yourself incapable of a relatively simple Internet search. If I give you the phrase, the first thing you are likely to do is google it to try to disprove my point. Therefore I am simply stopping you making an eejit out of yourself. Anyone who is interested in the phrase is welcome to PM me - some already have.

If they are one and the same fair enough, but it takes a particular class of poster to deliberately claim to be something he's not.

But I am not the one who is claiming anything.  I'd say it takes a "certain class of poster" to conjure up such a conspiracy theory on the flimsiest of evidence, loudly (and proudly) proclaim it for all to hear, then when challenged to back it up, refuse to do so on the grounds of "Guilty until proven Innocent". (That's Lynchbhoy I'm referring to, in case you're wondering  )

I was talking about someone who would deliberately create a false identity, for example someone who would be from a unionist background who would set himself up on here as a nationalist, Celtic supporting, GAA hating individual. Now if (and it's a big if) this is what the poster MnaG is all about, then yes my comment is correct. The rest of your point may seem like a clever jibe to you, but in the context of the point which you appear to be trying to make, it's actually irrelevant bollix.

This thread concerns whether I am MNG or not. I am saying I'm not. No-one has produced any plausible evidence, never mind proof, that I am. And nor will they, since I, for one, know that I am not MNG. Now if MNG is not who he says he is, then that is for another thread and for others to debate, since I have no idea who he is, nor is it any of my business.

You will no doubt also be aware that I have stated that I am happy to accept that you are not he and he not you.

nifan should know better. Let EG continue the debate he started, you are the one who is looking bad in this thread. Even well known members of the cavalry like ChrisOWC are giving this one a bye ball.

Until Lynchbhoy and others started getting personal with him, nifan's contributions were merely of a technical nature (how one might disguise ones identity over the internet etc). Since I am a bit of a dud on such matters, I was quite happy to let him get on with dealing with that. As for the reasons behind ChrisOWC's non-participation, you'd need to ask him, since I'm not him either, strangely enough...

This post appears contradictory. You profess to being a dud, yet you start a thread with the swagger of a technological genius.

I know how to open a thread. That doesn't take "technological genius", merely the most basic of computer/messageboard knowledge. I am at a complete loss to know how to "swagger" in cyberspace. 

My post is not about opening a new thread. Your swaggering technological genius refers to the confidence with which you produced your pretty conclusive evidence (sic). But I think you knew that already.

I would suggest that getting out of your comfort zone and registering on a site such as this is indeed in keeping with the spirit of OSS. However it is your behaviour since you registered that would suggest you have no idea. As well as registering, you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board. The fact that your posts re. the GAA are almost exclusively negative would sugest you are neither interested in the GAA, furthering your knowledge of the GAA nor the OSS campaign.

Then your understanding of OSS must differ from mine. For as I see it, OSS does not actually require people to adopt the opinions, habits and practices of "the other community", but make an effort to understand them and communicate with them. That is what I seek to do by my presence on this Board. If you or other individual members don't like what I think, then so be it, but I am pleased to say that some other members do seem to appreciate my contribution, going by what they post, or from their pm's.
So why don't you join a Board like OWC, as e.g. Jim Murphy and Ziggy have done? I have been quite happy in the past to assist them and others from here when they have had queries/problems joining.

Nowhere have I ever suggested that OSS is about adopting the opinions, habits and practices of "the other community" - it clearly isn't. What I did was suggest that you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board. You have suggested that my understanding is wrong, that one should but make an effort to understand them ["the other community"] and communicate with them. I am really at a loss to understand the difference between the two emboldened quotes.

Whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you post, I respect your right to post it. Where I don't agree I will explain why I don't, simple as that.

As to why I don't join OWC, the most obvious one is to do with how admin on that site will deal with any personal information I supply them. There would unquestionably be posts I would make that the mods would disagree with and I am not prepared to take any chances. At least one moderator there has already stated that, in his time posting here he would single me out for particular treatment.

If I was to join OWC, I would have to limit myself to threads that are not about the GAA. I find it difficult to understand the depth of hatred from several posters on that site, many posting from a level that verges on extreme ignorance. Fair play to those who do defend the GAA from unwarranted criticism, but in my opinion these threads take away from what is (or was when I lurked) a very informative site for the average football fan.

Also I don't see how me registering on OWC would or should be seen as being linked to OSS. I have an interest in many sports, I certainly feel that I could hold my own on soccer debates (at all levels of soccer in NI) with the majority of posters there.

Furthermore, if I did register I would use the same username as I do here.

Nor will you see me tell you (or any other poster) to feck off back where you came from. There are a number of different types of poster who have come from owc. There are those whose sole interest is in soccer and demonstrate this through posting in a wide range of topics, there are those who were drawn to this site by the ramblings of Fearon and who are trying to right wrongs and yes, there are those here to simply stir shit. My view is that you fall into the latter category. Over two thousand posts later, for example, and we still don't know what club team you support. I won't ask any poster to feck off, I will do my best (through garbled syntax) to debate openly with them before I make up my mind about the type of poster they are. You will no doubt be interested to know that via a PM go-between, there is a standing invitation from me for Michael Boyd to come to our school to talk about FFA. I could show you other PMs from and to a range of owc posters that would make your assertion appear even more ridiculous than it does.

Several other posters have told me to "feck off", but I accept that you haven't. However, I have detected a distinct hostility from you, which more closely matches the attitude of the "Feck Off Brigade" than the majority of posters here who, insofar as they have any views on me (and I'm sure 99% don't give a bugger), are at least courteous and respectful.

I haven't, nor will I ever tell you or any other poster to feck off. Except in the bard of dunclug post and that was a poem that he sort of penned himself. Nor are my posts hostile. They are the result of reading yours and carefully analysing them. You won't get a pat on the back from every poster.  I don't agree with everything you post - I will highlight those areas that I don't. Same as with every other poster I have time to deal with. Does every other poster from owc who posts here sense the same hostility from me? When you deserve credit in a post, I will give you that due credit (as I did when you used new words or were witty on the GSTW thread). When you deserve to be taken to task for a post, I will do that and continue to do that. There will be no hostility, nor will there be a nodding acceptance that everything you say is correct.

And btw, I am a Spurs fan, but I choose not to debate that here, partly because I prefer a specialist soccer site like OWC, partly because I already spend enough time on this site and partly (mostly?) because I don't really care to be associated with Fearon, whose ramblings on Spurs I find to be cringeworthy in the extreme.

So you don't debate Spurs because this isn't a specialist soccer site, but you have no problems debating politics here. Is this a specialist politics site? I would suggest there are other better sites where you could debate these issues. I fully accept your point re. Anthony but that hasn't stopped one other poster from owc admitting his interest in Spurs.

Of course, I am also an NI fan, and have posted extensively on that team on this forum. Maybe you hadn't noticed? 
As for your invitation to Michael Boyd etc, that's great, but it doesn't alter the attitude you've displayed towards me (not that that attitude bothers or deters me, I should add, since my skin is sufficiently thick!)

Any perceived attitude towards you is based solely on your posts here.

It says a lot of a person in that they will only do a favour if they feel they owe somebody one. What sort of world would we live in then?

You also make an assumptions about me, erroneously as it happens. I neither seek nor crave inclusion within your (select) group. I slept very soundly last night, the possibility of not being taken seriously by you being insufficient to keep me awake.

I am quite happy to take people at face value and do them a favour if I can, without expectation of any return. However, such is the antagonism I detect from you and certain others, I don't feel as if I owe you anything. Of course, I am sure that feeling is mutual; such is the world we live in.

Whilst I may not feel as if I owe you anything (other than the courtesy of a reply to your post), if I can I will do anyone a favour. For example, I Pmed a poster who joined from owc to tell him he had forgotten to hide his email address. I regret not doing that for the bard, but I genuinely thought his email address was a piss take.

I will leave with a few excerpts from your posts on this thread to show the true level of debate of which you are capable. I have never seen so much personal abuse in one thread.

Just because it took you an hour to read*, don't assume the rest of us move at your pace...

* - Is the tip of your finger getting sore? 

I didn't think it was a very hard distinction to grasp, but I'll spell it out for slow-learners like yourself.

In so far as I can decipher your garbled syntax,

P.S. If by "essay" you are referring to that post (#85), then I'd suggest if you can only handle short words and the simplest of grammatical constructions, you'd be better off with the Beano.

Not even I could be bothered to reply to this inarticulate, ungrammatical rant, for it's pretty much total (ahem) carp,

P.S. If you must quote from Shakespeare, at least try to spell it correctly. 

Such vile abuse! Will no-one think of the poor children...

P.S. May I assume you have already reported Double Cross and Pints of Guinness to the European Court of Human Rights or War Crimes Tribunal etc for their little "exchanges" on this thread? And that you haven't been reading e.g. the "Southerners/Freestaters" thread? Or does internecine feuding between Gaels not count as "personal abuse"? 

My point was that had you been so sure of your position and your debating skills, you would not have had to resort to abusing six posters on one thread about their grammar. But I think you knew that already.  The rest of that quote is irrelevant whataboutery.

However as the thread has blatantly been started as a attack on another member, surely it breaks the feuding or personal abuse rules?

Since when has directing a challenge to someone to back up a (false) allegation they have been making about you constituted an "attack" or "personal abuse"? I could have asked Lynchboy about it in any of the threads where he repeated his accusation, but chose not to, since I didn't want to clog other peoples discussions with something which didn't concern them. (Of course, when I opened this thread, I didn't anticipate that Double Cross and Pints would choose it to conduct their "Late, Late Show", but I don't think I can be held responsible for that!)

Anyhow, by your hints about "personal abuse" etc, I get the impression* that you (and one or two others) are itching to get me banned. Go on, why not report me to the Mods - you know you want to! 


* - Or is that just paranoia deriving from my (ingrained) Hunnish Siege Mentality? 

Are you including me in that list of one or two others. If yes, please re-read what I wrote when you were previously banned. If no, please accept my apologies.

[Main Street]

Whereas, as the thread in question clearly demonstrated, there was no such "conspiracy", merely a simple misunderstanding.

I accepted that unreservedly.

Still, at least Ziggy and Jim were entirely gracious about their mistake, unlike you. More to the point, they didn't repeat it, unlike you...

Maybe they had read the thread to its conclusion, I hadn't.
That's why I  installed a ?
If I had read that thread to its conclusion, I would have remembered that it was concluded in such a way.

Anyhow, any chance of you revealing the "common phrase" which betrays Myles Na G's hidden Unionist sympathies? Or do I/him/we have to wait for Little Jack Lynchbhoy to unveil it for us all to marvel at? 

Why are you implying that I wrote about a  "common phrase" which betrays Myles, why are you using quotes?
WTF are you playing at?
Or, are you YET AGAIN surmising, quoting what passes for your surmises as fact
and planting it as if it is something I wrote.

As you are not a total internet retard as you can use the search button you can find out out what I wrote.
I have already clearly replied to the Evil Myles
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=11047.msg472684#msg472684

[saffron sam2]

I don't know if EG and Myles are one and the same, but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Both have used a phrase that I have only ever seen or heard on this board - even then it has only be used by two posters, EG and Myles.

What is that phrase?

The phrase shall remain undisclosed for now. If I was to disclose the phrase it would simply give you another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance in the art of googling.

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=9862.30

When both of you use the phrase again, I may tell you.

So you refer to an unspecified "phrase" to back up some point you are making, then when asked to state what it is, you decline, citing something vague about Googling.   Sounds to me like you're a graduate of the "Main Street School of Internet Debating", with all the credibility that that confers.  

This needs a separate post of its own. My initial post stated that both EG and Myles have used a phrase that I have only ever seen or heard on this board and  even then it has only be used by those two posters. I should have taken the time to read every single post on the site or at least search the site for other usage of the phrase and I would have found quite a few posters who used the term, including FOSB and Donagh.

Please disregard any reference to this point. It is, not for the first (or indeed the last time) irrelevant bollix.

ss2.

[his holiness nb]

Just popped in for an update on this thread. Has anyone lost an eye yet? 

[nifan]

My initial post stated that both EG and Myles have used a phrase that I have only ever seen or heard on this board and  even then it has only be used by those two posters. I should have taken the time to read every single post on the site or at least search the site for other usage of the phrase and I would have found quite a few posters who used the term, including FOSB and Donagh.

What was the phrase SS?

I haven't, nor will I ever tell you or any other poster to feck off. Except in the bard of dunclug post and that was a poem that he sort of penned himself. Nor are my posts hostile. They are the result of reading yours and carefully analysing them. You won't get a pat on the back from every poster.  I don't agree with everything you post - I will highlight those areas that I don't. Same as with every other poster I have time to deal with. Does every other poster from owc who posts here sense the same hostility from me?

EG I have to agree with SS here. From my point of view we have not always agreed on everything, but I find hes  good enough to argue his points, and not come out with the generalisations that some others tend to.

[Jimmy Joe]

Worst thread ever.

And who is this double cross fella?

Is that snowed under etc?

I dunno who double cross is, but from just reading the last few pages of this thread he's doing my head in.   

I hope he doesn't offer to "make arrangements" with me now as well 

[Evil Genius]

I don't know if EG and Myles are one and the same, but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Both have used a phrase that I have only ever seen or heard on this board - even then it has only be used by two posters, EG and Myles.

What is that phrase?

The phrase shall remain undisclosed for now. If I was to disclose the phrase it would simply give you another opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance in the art of googling.

http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=9862.30

When both of you use the phrase again, I may tell you.

So you refer to an unspecified "phrase" to back up some point you are making, then when asked to state what it is, you decline, citing something vague about Googling.   Sounds to me like you're a graduate of the "Main Street School of Internet Debating", with all the credibility that that confers.  

The reference about googling isn't vague. Had you clicked on the link it would have shown where you proved yourself incapable of a relatively simple Internet search. If I give you the phrase, the first thing you are likely to do is google it to try to disprove my point. Therefore I am simply stopping you making an eejit out of yourself. Anyone who is interested in the phrase is welcome to PM me - some already have.

Your concern for my credibility is touching, but I am quite happy to take my chance on being judged an eejit, so why not just tell everyone what this mysterious phrase is? Why must it remain confidential? And why, if I am one of only two posters who uses it, would I need to Google it, correctly or otherwise?  

nifan should know better. Let EG continue the debate he started, you are the one who is looking bad in this thread. Even well known members of the cavalry like ChrisOWC are giving this one a bye ball.

Until Lynchbhoy and others started getting personal with him, nifan's contributions were merely of a technical nature (how one might disguise ones identity over the internet etc). Since I am a bit of a dud on such matters, I was quite happy to let him get on with dealing with that. As for the reasons behind ChrisOWC's non-participation, you'd need to ask him, since I'm not him either, strangely enough...

This post appears contradictory. You profess to being a dud, yet you start a thread with the swagger of a technological genius.

I know how to open a thread. That doesn't take "technological genius", merely the most basic of computer/messageboard knowledge. I am at a complete loss to know how to "swagger" in cyberspace.  

My post is not about opening a new thread. Your swaggering technological genius refers to the confidence with which you produced your pretty conclusive evidence (sic). But I think you knew that already.

I was pretty confident that the evidence I produced that MNG and I are separate posters (i.e. near simultaneous posting) was conclusive. For whilst (as I now know) certain people might be able to fake that through their use of technology, I certainly couldn't, as anyone who knows about me can confirm.
The fact that not one poster has come out in support of LB's hair-brained conspiracy would indicate my confidence was not misplaced.
As to whether I was "swaggering" or not, I'll leave for others to judge.

Nowhere have I ever suggested that OSS is about adopting the opinions, habits and practices of "the other community" - it clearly isn't. What I did was suggest that you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board. You have suggested that my understanding is wrong, that one should but make an effort to understand them ["the other community"] and communicate with them. I am really at a loss to understand the difference between the two emboldened quotes.

One of the reasons I joined this Board (though not the only one) derives from OSS. Now you are correct that I've never posted (except once or twice?) on the other part of the Board. But that is because I know so little about the actual games themselves that I am unqualified to contribute. That does not mean I'm not interested in learning about the games specifically, or the GAA generally, which is why I do browse that section from time-to-time. Indeed, I am happy to admit I have had a number of my preconceptions challenged and/or corrected by doing so.

Whilst I don't agree with a lot of what you post, I respect your right to post it. Where I don't agree I will explain why I don't, simple as that.

Fair enough. From having re-read this thread (and others), I realise I was being unfair/lazy in lumping you in with those whom I call "the usual suspects", i.e. those who seem only to have to see my name on the Board to pile in and have a pop, irrespective of what I've actually posted and disregarding others who are committing the same "offences" (or worse) as I get accused of.

As to why I don't join OWC, the most obvious one is to do with how admin on that site will deal with any personal information I supply them. There would unquestionably be posts I would make that the mods would disagree with and I am not prepared to take any chances. At least one moderator there has already stated that, in his time posting here he would single me out for particular treatment.

If I was to join OWC, I would have to limit myself to threads that are not about the GAA. I find it difficult to understand the depth of hatred from several posters on that site, many posting from a level that verges on extreme ignorance. Fair play to those who do defend the GAA from unwarranted criticism, but in my opinion these threads take away from what is (or was when I lurked) a very informative site for the average football fan.

Also I don't see how me registering on OWC would or should be seen as being linked to OSS. I have an interest in many sports, I certainly feel that I could hold my own on soccer debates (at all levels of soccer in NI) with the majority of posters there.

Furthermore, if I did register I would use the same username as I do here.

I don't understand. I thought you were not a Member of OWC, yet you refer to having "lurked" there in the past. Was this before they closed certain/most of the sections to non-patrons? Or are you a Member, but don't actually post (for fear of drawing unwelcome attention to yourself from the Mods etc)? And the Mod to whom you referred as "singling you out", did he do so on this site, or on OWC itself?
Frankly, there seems to me to be a lot of suspicion on this site from people who (no doubt sincerely) fear that their joining OWC will somehow leave them open to abuse or special treatment.
Some of this stems from simple misunderstanding. An example of this was that of Jim Murphy (and Ziggy), who was temporarily "locked-out" from OWC, for entirely unsinister reasons, which some people clearly misunderstood. Moreover, from the reaction to Jim's thread by one or two individuals, this perceived "discrimination" against him clearly "confirmed" long-held prejudices of theirs against OWC, which lingered even after the original misunderstanding had been cleared up.
And I daresay some (much?) of GAABoarders' fears stem from Fearon. One example was when he was visited at his place of work by Mac, a prominent OWC member. Now from his love of publicity and his use of his real User Name, TF's identity/location etc is not hard to discern. Moreover, his workplace is/was entirely open for anyone to walk in off the street. And I know that Mac's intentions were entirely above board, as was acknowledged (tbf) by TF himself. Consequently, the two seem to have had an entirely amicable chat, which even led to TF promising to desist from personal attacks on NI fans etc (Predictably, it didn't last).
Another occasion was when TF made some incredibly insensitive and offensive personal comments about an NI fan who was the victim of a vicious and unprovoked attack in Bratislava. This was brought to the attention of (I think) the victim's father, who deduced that it must have been posted by TF whilst he was in work. Consequently, it seems the outraged father's reference to TF's workplace was posted on OWC for a short period, before a Mod saw it and deleted it.
Anyhow, I have seen more than one prominent poster on this Board cite (misrepresent, actually) one or both of those two incidents as "proof" of how "dangerous" it is  for GAABoarders to post on OWC.
Ironically, one of the worst for this is someone who briefly joined OWC himself, was not abuse personally or the subject of unwarranted treatment etc, yet on any occasion he refers to OWC since, never misses the chance to denigrate it...
As for those few individuals on OWC who do, indeed, hate GAA, I can assure you that they have their counterparts on here, who hate "soccer" with equal vehemence. I do not see why the soccer-haters should deter me from posting here, just as those GAA-friendly posters on OWC are obviously not deterred over there, either.
Therefore, there is no more need for you to avoid the GAA section of OWC than any other GAA-friendly members of OWC, such as PatB, Belfast Owl, DinnyLTFC or even JamesR...
P.S. If your reference to using the same User Name on both sites is a dig at me, iirc I tried without success to register mine on here before adopting "Evil Genius"; it was the period when the Board seemed to be moving all the time, and I got fed up with a succession of failed attempts at Registration. Nothing sinister and no big deal, really.

Nor will you see me tell you (or any other poster) to feck off back where you came from. There are a number of different types of poster who have come from owc. There are those whose sole interest is in soccer and demonstrate this through posting in a wide range of topics, there are those who were drawn to this site by the ramblings of Fearon and who are trying to right wrongs and yes, there are those here to simply stir shit. My view is that you fall into the latter category. Over two thousand posts later, for example, and we still don't know what club team you support. I won't ask any poster to feck off, I will do my best (through garbled syntax) to debate openly with them before I make up my mind about the type of poster they are. You will no doubt be interested to know that via a PM go-between, there is a standing invitation from me for Michael Boyd to come to our school to talk about FFA. I could show you other PMs from and to a range of owc posters that would make your assertion appear even more ridiculous than it does.

Several other posters have told me to "feck off", but I accept that you haven't. However, I have detected a distinct hostility from you, which more closely matches the attitude of the "Feck Off Brigade" than the majority of posters here who, insofar as they have any views on me (and I'm sure 99% don't give a bugger), are at least courteous and respectful.

I haven't, nor will I ever tell you or any other poster to feck off. Except in the bard of dunclug post and that was a poem that he sort of penned himself. Nor are my posts hostile. They are the result of reading yours and carefully analysing them. You won't get a pat on the back from every poster.  I don't agree with everything you post - I will highlight those areas that I don't. Same as with every other poster I have time to deal with. Does every other poster from owc who posts here sense the same hostility from me? When you deserve credit in a post, I will give you that due credit (as I did when you used new words or were witty on the GSTW thread). When you deserve to be taken to task for a post, I will do that and continue to do that. There will be no hostility, nor will there be a nodding acceptance that everything you say is correct.

And btw, I am a Spurs fan, but I choose not to debate that here, partly because I prefer a specialist soccer site like OWC, partly because I already spend enough time on this site and partly (mostly?) because I don't really care to be associated with Fearon, whose ramblings on Spurs I find to be cringeworthy in the extreme.

So you don't debate Spurs because this isn't a specialist soccer site, but you have no problems debating politics here. Is this a specialist politics site? I would suggest there are other better sites where you could debate these issues. I fully accept your point re. Anthony but that hasn't stopped one other poster from owc admitting his interest in Spurs.

Of course, I am also an NI fan, and have posted extensively on that team on this forum. Maybe you hadn't noticed?  
As for your invitation to Michael Boyd etc, that's great, but it doesn't alter the attitude you've displayed towards me (not that that attitude bothers or deters me, I should add, since my skin is sufficiently thick!)

Any perceived attitude towards you is based solely on your posts here.

It says a lot of a person in that they will only do a favour if they feel they owe somebody one. What sort of world would we live in then?

You also make an assumptions about me, erroneously as it happens. I neither seek nor crave inclusion within your (select) group. I slept very soundly last night, the possibility of not being taken seriously by you being insufficient to keep me awake.

I am quite happy to take people at face value and do them a favour if I can, without expectation of any return. However, such is the antagonism I detect from you and certain others, I don't feel as if I owe you anything. Of course, I am sure that feeling is mutual; such is the world we live in.

Whilst I may not feel as if I owe you anything (other than the courtesy of a reply to your post), if I can I will do anyone a favour. For example, I Pmed a poster who joined from owc to tell him he had forgotten to hide his email address. I regret not doing that for the bard, but I genuinely thought his email address was a piss take.

No doubt you consider yourself to be reasonable and objective when engaging with posters like me (fair enough, no-one ever considers themselves unreasonable, myself included!) Yet in the midst of a lengthy post where you seem to be saying I've got a bad attitude, and/or get things out of proportion, and/or am not adopting an appropriately open and generous manner etc etc, you label me a mere "shit-stirrer"  .
There are many other posters who disagree with me just as much as you, but they at least do me the courtesy of respecting my motives. Oh well, such is life.

My point was that had you been so sure of your position and your debating skills, you would not have had to resort to abusing six posters on one thread about their grammar. But I think you knew that already.  The rest of that quote is irrelevant whataboutery.

However as the thread has blatantly been started as a attack on another member, surely it breaks the feuding or personal abuse rules?

Since when has directing a challenge to someone to back up a (false) allegation they have been making about you constituted an "attack" or "personal abuse"? I could have asked Lynchboy about it in any of the threads where he repeated his accusation, but chose not to, since I didn't want to clog other peoples discussions with something which didn't concern them. (Of course, when I opened this thread, I didn't anticipate that Double Cross and Pints would choose it to conduct their "Late, Late Show", but I don't think I can be held responsible for that!)

Anyhow, by your hints about "personal abuse" etc, I get the impression* that you (and one or two others) are itching to get me banned. Go on, why not report me to the Mods - you know you want to!  


* - Or is that just paranoia deriving from my (ingrained) Hunnish Siege Mentality?  

Are you including me in that list of one or two others. If yes, please re-read what I wrote when you were previously banned. If no, please accept my apologies.

The little collection of jibes by me which you painstakingly compiled seems to have got to you, doesn't it? Was it my reference to your "garbled syntax", perhaps? Anyhow, I entirely fail to see how it was anything more than the normal "rough and tumble" which goes with robust debate on this site - and certainly a lot less personal and abusive than some of the shit I get called here, for that matter.
As for your closing question, no, I don't consider you to be one of those who would see me banned, so no need to apologise.

P.S. Re your reference to my "whataboutery", you misunderstand the term. "Whataboutery" is where someone is accused of something, and seeks to excuse himself by claiming it somehow doesn't count, since someone else did something even worse elsewhere. I was not attempting to avoid responsibility for what I posted:  I happily stand by it.
Instead, I was referring to your double-standards, whereby you claimed never to have seen such "abuse" as I posted here, when any number of other threads have much worse from others, without seeming to bother you similarly.

[Rossfan]

OK EG you can stop now.
You've won the longest internet forum post ever award.

[carribbear]

OK EG you can stop now.
You've won the longest internet forum post ever award.

Not to mention the most full of sh&t

Well done Evil Myles 

[saffron sam2]

Your concern for my credibility is touching, but I am quite happy to take my chance on being judged an eejit, so why not just tell everyone what this mysterious phrase is? Why must it remain confidential? And why, if I am one of only two posters who uses it, would I need to Google it, correctly or otherwise? 

As I have explained above in a separate post, the phrase is in much more common usage than I thought. If I post it here you can assume that it will become even more common. Every smart arsed clown on the board will use it response to my posts; Chrisowc may even use it as his signature. I have also explained why you would google it. I gave an example where you googled goal famine (wrongly as it happens) to try to prove a point. I don't see why you would do anything different here.

I was pretty confident that the evidence I produced that MNG and I are separate posters (i.e. near simultaneous posting) was conclusive. For whilst (as I now know) certain people might be able to fake that through their use of technology, I certainly couldn't, as anyone who knows about me can confirm.
The fact that not one poster has come out in support of LB's hair-brained conspiracy would indicate my confidence was not misplaced.
As to whether I was "swaggering" or not, I'll leave for others to judge.

Several posters, though, have come out in support of the idea that your pretty conclusive evidence is every bit as hair-brained.

Nowhere have I ever suggested that OSS is about adopting the opinions, habits and practices of "the other community" - it clearly isn't. What I did was suggest that you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board. You have suggested that my understanding is wrong, that one should but make an effort to understand them ["the other community"] and communicate with them. I am really at a loss to understand the difference between the two emboldened quotes.

One of the reasons I joined this Board (though not the only one) derives from OSS. Now you are correct that I've never posted (except once or twice?) on the other part of the Board. But that is because I know so little about the actual games themselves that I am unqualified to contribute. That does not mean I'm not interested in learning about the games specifically, or the GAA generally, which is why I do browse that section from time-to-time. Indeed, I am happy to admit I have had a number of my preconceptions challenged and/or corrected by doing so.

Why did you quote me here, yet not even attempt to answer the question I asked? So, I'll ask it again. What is the difference in my understanding of OSS (you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board) and yours (make an effort to understand them ["the other community"] and communicate with them)? Both would appear to be suggesting an attempt to understand, yet you suggest mine is different from yours.

I don't understand. I thought you were not a Member of OWC, yet you refer to having "lurked" there in the past. Was this before they closed certain/most of the sections to non-patrons? Or are you a Member, but don't actually post (for fear of drawing unwelcome attention to yourself from the Mods etc)? And the Mod to whom you referred as "singling you out", did he do so on this site, or on OWC itself?

I am not a member of owc, never have been and most likely never will be. My lurking was indeed before most sections were closed off. The Mod in question knew that I was lurking and the posts to which I refer were made on owc. Still, he didn't visit me at work. Hope that clears that up a bit for you.

Frankly, there seems to me to be a lot of suspicion on this site from people who (no doubt sincerely) fear that their joining OWC will somehow leave them open to abuse or special treatment.

That is indeed correct, although the first example of personal and work details being published had nothing to do with site. A Derry City fan annoyed wee Marty (the mod, not McGuinness) sufficiently for his work email to be displayed for everyone to see. If this thread is no longer on owc, I will happily give you the email address so you can contact him yourself to verify my story.

Some of this stems from simple misunderstanding. An example of this was that of Jim Murphy (and Ziggy), who was temporarily "locked-out" from OWC, for entirely unsinister reasons, which some people clearly misunderstood. Moreover, from the reaction to Jim's thread by one or two individuals, this perceived "discrimination" against him clearly "confirmed" long-held prejudices of theirs against OWC, which lingered even after the original misunderstanding had been cleared up.

None of my concerns would have evolved from either of the two posters named above. it is quite clear that both, on these occasions demonstrated the technological wizardry of a 'dud'.

And I daresay some (much?) of GAABoarders' fears stem from Fearon. One example was when he was visited at his place of work by Mac, a prominent OWC member. Now from his love of publicity and his use of his real User Name, TF's identity/location etc is not hard to discern. Moreover, his workplace is/was entirely open for anyone to walk in off the street. And I know that Mac's intentions were entirely above board, as was acknowledged (tbf) by TF himself. Consequently, the two seem to have had an entirely amicable chat, which even led to TF promising to desist from personal attacks on NI fans etc (Predictably, it didn't last).

The Mac / TF thing didn't bother me in the slightest, in fact he would also be welcome at my place of work (Mac that is, not Fearon, although he would be asked to clarify his GAA / Madrid bombing line). It should also be pointed out that imo this was Mac's second attempt to ambush TF. The portly one was trying to arrange a pre-match pint with GSpain before a ROI match and who should be GS's guest on the same night only Mac. Possibly coincidental, but TF didn't weigh in that night - something about having to buy tickets.

Another occasion was when TF made some incredibly insensitive and offensive personal comments about an NI fan who was the victim of a vicious and unprovoked attack in Bratislava. This was brought to the attention of (I think) the victim's father, who deduced that it must have been posted by TF whilst he was in work. Consequently, it seems the outraged father's reference to TF's workplace was posted on OWC for a short period, before a Mod saw it and deleted it.

The line posted by TF, whilst in bad taste and not particularly funny, was neither incredibly insensitive nor offensive, whereas the posting of his workplace details was an extremely over the top reaction. 

Anyhow, I have seen more than one prominent poster on this Board cite (misrepresent, actually) one or both of those two incidents as "proof" of how "dangerous" it is for GAABoarders to post on OWC.

It's not specifically dangerous for gaaboarders, rather for those who have the temerity to disagree with at least one of the moderators.

As for those few individuals on OWC who do, indeed, hate GAA, I can assure you that they have their counterparts on here, who hate "soccer" with equal vehemence.

Can you name some of these soccer haters for me?

P.S. If your reference to using the same User Name on both sites is a dig at me, iirc I tried without success to register mine on here before adopting "Evil Genius"; it was the period when the Board seemed to be moving all the time, and I got fed up with a succession of failed attempts at Registration. Nothing sinister and no big deal, really.

Yes, that clears that up for me. Here was me thinking that unlike Mac, SammyG, big Roger etc, the likes of yourself, nifan, evil Myles et al. didn't have the courage of your convictions.

No doubt you consider yourself to be reasonable and objective when engaging with posters like me (fair enough, no-one ever considers themselves unreasonable, myself included!) Yet in the midst of a lengthy post where you seem to be saying I've got a bad attitude, and/or get things out of proportion, and/or am not adopting an appropriately open and generous manner etc etc, you label me a mere "shit-stirrer"   .
There are many other posters who disagree with me just as much as you, but they at least do me the courtesy of respecting my motives. Oh well, such is life.

As I have said before my opinion of you is based on your posts. I have been reasonable with you when reason is appropriate. I don't think the use of the term "shit-stirrer" to describe you is unreasonable, but as you say others will disagree. 

The little collection of jibes by me which you painstakingly compiled seems to have got to you, doesn't it?

You appear not to understand the meaning of the word painstaking. Climbing the last 100 yards up Mount Everest would be painstaking; building a life-sized model of the Titanic from matchsticks would be painstaking; copying the entire works of Shakespeare on to a grain of rice would be painstaking; using the View Last Posts of This Member facility of the gaaboard certainly isn't painstaking. Nor is quoting them in another post.

Was it my reference to your "garbled syntax", perhaps?

No, initially it was your response to Lynchbhoy's post and Gab's reply to it. Then I noticed the pattern. Regardless of whether or not you highlighted my garbled syntax, I would still have made the post.

Anyhow, I entirely fail to see how it was anything more than the normal "rough and tumble" which goes with robust debate on this site - and certainly a lot less personal and abusive than some of the shit I get called here, for that matter.

Whilst the nature of your posts wasn't particularly offensive, taken together (six posts on one thread aimed at six individual posters) they are certainly more than the normal "rough and tumble". I believe you call it "playing the man".

P.S. Re your reference to my "whataboutery", you misunderstand the term. "Whataboutery" is where someone is accused of something, and seeks to excuse himself by claiming it somehow doesn't count, since someone else did something even worse elsewhere. I was not attempting to avoid responsibility for what I posted:  I happily stand by it.

As sure as night follows day, when I introduce the term whataboutery you will claim that I misunderstand the meaning. Interestingly the meaning has changed here.

Instead, I was referring to your double-standards, whereby you claimed never to have seen such "abuse" as I posted here, when any number of other threads have much worse from others, without seeming to bother you similarly.

No double standards here. I have never seen a thread before where one poster has abused six separate posters, almost in consecutive posts. If you find one (never mind any number), let me know. I will certainly comment on it in the same manner as I have here.

[his holiness nb]

Saffron, whatever about the misunderstanding about posters being "banned" from OWC when they werent, I can only speak for myself from my own personal experience on there.

I joined, and posted a few polite posts in defence of the GAA. If I recall correctly Nicky Brennan was referring to an Ulster Championship game between a team from the six counties versus a team from the 26 counties. Brennan mentioned "football in Ulster" and he was slated on there by people saying he refused to say "Northern Ireland" as if it were some political stance. I just posted to explain that as the game involved one team from outside of "Northern Ireland" then it wouldnt make sense to say anything but Ulster.

Once it was out that I dared to make the slightest defense of anything GAA I was personally abused by several posters and every possible gripe Unionists can have with the GAA were thrown at me, and I was even slated on this site for not replying to all those gripes! The mods on there even stated that the GAA was a "racist organisation".

By all means, try it yourself, but I was most certainly not made welcome over there.

I honestly thought that if I remained polite and stated my point without aggression I might be accepted there, this was not the case.

So I left, and have been accused of running off with my tail between my legs since then. Truth is, why would I bother staying on a site where people are consistantly rude and abusive to you?

Doesnt make sense. Thank god this site is a little more tolerant.

Yes there are exceptions. And rows with guys from OWC, but not purely because they are from OWC, which is the big difference.

The people who claim to be victims on here dish out as much abuses as they get, if not more.
I dont want to get into the old Evil Genius versus His Holiness carry on again, but despite claiming to be victimised by the "usual suspects" of which no doubt I am one of, he has actually been banned twice for comments directed at me, where I've obeyed the site rules and instructions of mods. So who is victimising who over here?

Guys like Nifan prove that its about what you post, not where you came from, that matters on here. Obviously theres a tiny few who are always suspicious, but nothing like the sheer volume of hatred displayed on OWC.

As I've said though, thats just my experience, maybe others will have better experiences over there.

But be careful with your personal information, no amount of justification or "TF didnt mind" can excuse people posting the personal information of their critics, or indeed turning up unannounced to somebodies workplace to confront them over comments made on a website, and boasting later on OWC about how "timid" said poster was once confronted.

[Evil Genius]

As I have explained above in a separate post, the phrase is in much more common usage than I thought. If I post it here you can assume that it will become even more common. Every smart arsed clown on the board will use it response to my posts; Chrisowc may even use it as his signature. I have also explained why you would google it. I gave an example where you googled goal famine (wrongly as it happens) to try to prove a point. I don't see why you would do anything different here.

Aw diddums

Several posters, though, have come out in support of the idea that your pretty conclusive evidence is every bit as hair-brained.

Good for them. Presumably they also imagine that when LB makes a claim about me, it is for me to disprove it, not him to back it up. Speaking of whom, any idea where has he got to? Not like him to let something drop (unless, of course, he now realises he has got it completely wrong, and his "plum" is actually a "lemon")

Why did you quote me here, yet not even attempt to answer the question I asked? So, I'll ask it again. What is the difference in my understanding of OSS (you should try to understand the ethos and the reality of the GAA through involving yourself in debate on both sides of the board) and yours (make an effort to understand them ["the other community"] and communicate with them)? Both would appear to be suggesting an attempt to understand, yet you suggest mine is different from yours.

I'm a bit lost here. I thought you were enquiring why (in the spirit of OSS?) I don't post on the other side of this Board (i.e. the GAA Section). I thought I explained why. I also thought I explained that OSS is only one reason why I post on this Board. I have alluded to some of the other reasons elsewhere. Frankly, I don't give a sh1t (stirred or otherwise  ) whether you or anyone else accepts those reasons. I don't have to answer to you (or anyone else) for my being a Member, any more than you (they) have to do to me.

I don't understand. I thought you were not a Member of OWC, yet you refer to having "lurked" there in the past. Was this before they closed certain/most of the sections to non-patrons? Or are you a Member, but don't actually post (for fear of drawing unwelcome attention to yourself from the Mods etc)? And the Mod to whom you referred as "singling you out", did he do so on this site, or on OWC itself?

I am not a member of owc, never have been and most likely never will be. My lurking was indeed before most sections were closed off. The Mod in question knew that I was lurking and the posts to which I refer were made on owc. Still, he didn't visit me at work. Hope that clears that up a bit for you.

Frankly, there seems to me to be a lot of suspicion on this site from people who (no doubt sincerely) fear that their joining OWC will somehow leave them open to abuse or special treatment.

That is indeed correct, although the first example of personal and work details being published had nothing to do with site. A Derry City fan annoyed wee Marty (the mod, not McGuinness) sufficiently for his work email to be displayed for everyone to see. If this thread is no longer on owc, I will happily give you the email address so you can contact him yourself to verify my story.

I'm afraid I'm lost here, too. Several (many?) Members of this Board are also registered on OWC. Further, there are (presumably) many other non-GAABoard members from a similar background (GAA fans/Southerners/Nationalists etc) who also post on OWC. Yet you fear that you have been "singled out" by an OWC Mod, therefore are not keen to join. Is this correct?
Because if it is, I fail to see how a Mod knowing your IP address and User Name is any more significant to him or you than any other Mod on any other Board (inc this one) knowing such details. Are you e-mailing from inside Prison or something?  
As for the Derry City fan, I must say I don't know anything about it (before my time?), but while I have no reason to doubt your account of what the DCFC fan told you, I suspect there may be more to it than that. For in my experience of such disputes, there are invariably two sides to the story.
Anyhow, I have in the past helped posters from here with queries/difficulties re. OWC Membership, and would be happy enough to do the same for you - PM me if you like.

The Mac / TF thing didn't bother me in the slightest, in fact he would also be welcome at my place of work (Mac that is, not Fearon, although he would be asked to clarify his GAA / Madrid bombing line). It should also be pointed out that imo this was Mac's second attempt to ambush TF. The portly one was trying to arrange a pre-match pint with GSpain before a ROI match and who should be GS's guest on the same night only Mac. Possibly coincidental, but TF didn't weigh in that night - something about having to buy tickets.

From the ROI match incident, it sounds to me like any gripe you/TF might have should be with GSpain (for faciltating what you describe rather dramatically as an "ambush")
Anyhow, even if you are correct in your suspicions (and you've not produced any proof, btw), I fail to see what it has to do with OWC, or why it should cause alarm for TF (unless it was the prospect of having to buy an extra drink?)

Another occasion was when TF made some incredibly insensitive and offensive personal comments about an NI fan who was the victim of a vicious and unprovoked attack in Bratislava. This was brought to the attention of (I think) the victim's father, who deduced that it must have been posted by TF whilst he was in work. Consequently, it seems the outraged father's reference to TF's workplace was posted on OWC for a short period, before a Mod saw it and deleted it.

The line posted by TF, whilst in bad taste and not particularly funny, was neither incredibly insensitive nor offensive, whereas the posting of his workplace details was an extremely over the top reaction.  

Anyhow, I have seen more than one prominent poster on this Board cite (misrepresent, actually) one or both of those two incidents as "proof" of how "dangerous" it is for GAABoarders to post on OWC.

Some NI fans were the victims of an entirely unprovoked attack by a gang of heavily armed thugs (so-called "Security") in a bar in Bratislava, where inter alia one sustained a broken jaw and another lost a testicle. TF seemed to think this funny, despite something similar having happened to ROI fans at the same bar a year or two previously. Worse, he couldn't forbear to hide his glee, but posted his "humour" on this site. When this was noted on OWC, the father of one of the victims, understandably enraged imo, wondered whether TF's employer (name inserted) knew what TF was doing in company time. When a Mod spotted this post at what was a particularly busy period (i.e. post-international), the post was deleted.
That is precisely the sort of thing which could happen on any Board, including this, to any well-known individual with a mania for self-publicity, who consistently posts offensive remarks under his real name, during office hours. Reasonably careful individuals, however, need have no such worries.

As for those few individuals on OWC who do, indeed, hate GAA, I can assure you that they have their counterparts on here, who hate "soccer" with equal vehemence.

Can you name some of these soccer haters for me?

Sorry, for "hate soccer" I should have said "hate the NI soccer team"

P.S. If your reference to using the same User Name on both sites is a dig at me, iirc I tried without success to register mine on here before adopting "Evil Genius"; it was the period when the Board seemed to be moving all the time, and I got fed up with a succession of failed attempts at Registration. Nothing sinister and no big deal, really.

Yes, that clears that up for me. Here was me thinking that unlike Mac, SammyG, big Roger etc, the likes of yourself, nifan, evil Myles et al. didn't have the courage of your convictions.

I have nothing to hide. Iirc, I attempted to register on this Board as "Ealing Green", kept getting told it was already registered (something to do with the Board moving?), yet when I tried to log on under that name, I was told my Password was incorrect  . I daresay I might have been overlooking something simple enough, but in the end, I got fed up and simply chose another name. I hope this explanation doesn't detract from your apparent sense of moral superiority...

The little collection of jibes by me which you painstakingly compiled seems to have got to you, doesn't it?

You appear not to understand the meaning of the word painstaking. Climbing the last 100 yards up Mount Everest would be painstaking; building a life-sized model of the Titanic from matchsticks would be painstaking; copying the entire works of Shakespeare on to a grain of rice would be painstaking; using the View Last Posts of This Member facility of the gaaboard certainly isn't painstaking. Nor is quoting them in another post.

Was it my reference to your "garbled syntax", perhaps?

No, initially it was your response to Lynchbhoy's post and Gab's reply to it. Then I noticed the pattern. Regardless of whether or not you highlighted my garbled syntax, I would still have made the post.

Anyhow, I entirely fail to see how it was anything more than the normal "rough and tumble" which goes with robust debate on this site - and certainly a lot less personal and abusive than some of the shit I get called here, for that matter.

Whilst the nature of your posts wasn't particularly offensive, taken together (six posts on one thread aimed at six individual posters) they are certainly more than the normal "rough and tumble". I believe you call it "playing the man".

If you say so. For "painstaking" you may substitute "carefully" or "accurately".
As for the six remarks themselves, personally I really don't care if you take exception to them, since no-one else (inc, one of the "targets", The Watcher Pat) seems to be bothered. Why not take it up with the Mods, eh?
P.S. Re. your "garbled syntax", that was not some gratuitous jibe by me, merely a simple statement of fact.

As sure as night follows day, when I introduce the term whataboutery you will claim that I misunderstand the meaning. Interestingly the meaning has changed here.

Of course I will claim it. That is because you obviously do not understand the term. "Whataboutery" is referring to someone elses "offences" in an attempt to excuse or deny ones own. It is not the same as, therefore does not preclude, referring to someone elses offences in order to make a different point - in this case, your double standards.