hypochondriac

What are you talking about?

Except that it hasn't been answered.

The reason why the forum is going downhill is because when someone finds a thread boring, they come on it and shout about how much they hate the thread. It's a weird way to be.

You have now taken the time to post on this thread twice to moan about the content of it. Weirdo.

Where am I talking about foaming at the mouth or saying someone is desperate for the club to do something wrong? I havent.

That wasn't why. There was a clampdown on the club crest use in general. It's just an example on the club being proactive about how it is viewed, including online. I can very much see a scenario where some at the club were unhappy about leftback and so sought to get him removed. Whether that happened or not I have no idea. Hopefully not because the whole point of the forum is to allow everyone to post without fear of censorship as long as they follow the rules.

The club have been quick to clamp down on things when they hear things they don't like. There have been numerous examples including the Echo bannings, The Saints Trust and Nick Illingsworth being threatened with legal action. Anyway this is completely irrelevant to this thread.

Which is why I asked the question knowing that Cortese has been quick to clamp down on things online.

So Keith virtually becoming the club's mouthpiece? Banning posters just for holding an alternative view? The club hiring PR people so all trust between posters was lost? Obviously 'Amygate' and an alleged poster off here cutting Keith's electricity was the final straw but it was heading that way before then I didn't say that bit about presuming the worst so please don't generalise.

Not sure I care that much how the US view other people.

Why do you have to try to belittle people for holding an alternative view? Where in my post does it suggest that I am dying for the club to have influenced the admin? Like me you saw the death of saintsforever, caused mostly by the negative influence of the club on the site. Leftback posted potentially sensitive information with much of it proven to be correct. Stu posted lots of abuse (even though a lot of the time IMO he had a point.) so no wonder he was banned. The two cases are different. Just checking that the site remains as impartial and free from outside interference as ever. People have turned a blind eye to that sort of thing in the past (assuming as you put it) and look how S4E ended up. I'm not frothing from the mouth at any way, its just it is a Sunday afternoon and in between doing my work I am posting on here.

Not at all. If anything it shows how supportive people have been that it has taken until almost December for people to start questioning his continued presence in the starting lineup.

I won't go into too much detail because it has been covered. Just to say though that in my opinion you could not be more wrong.

If you mean told that he has no idea what influenced the decision then you would be right...

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking the question. If the relevant admin came on now and said that they decided to take the decision because they were worried about leaving themselves open to libel, then that's fair enough even though it's a bit of a pain. Think we should be told though.

Please try not to quote him dune. I have him on ignore.

Not particularly but worth knowing. Really odd that you would bother to come onto this thread just to post that.

If you could find out that would be good.

Would appreciate if you could find out if it was something to do with the club or if it was just because Boj thought they were leaving themselves open to legal action.

How do you know?

So is it a permanent ban? Or temporary?

Yeah that is my point basically. Just ensuring the site is impartial as always.

Can't go today but will be listening to the radio and supporting. Doesn't mean I can't ask the question though.

Shame Martin doesn't get a chance.

Most interesting poster on here. What's the deal?