saintbletch

I've got the Lesbian, Gay and Transsexual bits of your user name, but why the second L? Is that double Lesbian? Re Pelle, he's one of those blokes that, if your partner came home and told you that she was leaving you for him, you'd just have to nod and say "Fair enough", or perhaps "Can I watch?".

Nice Crocs!

Come on Tush, we all know you're more Adrian than Rocky, more Patrick than Bobby Moore, and that you've more in common with Jedward than The Krays. As you know, most of the posters from TSW meet up regularly because we just really enjoy each other's company. We know that you eschew these sort of gatherings, so we've stopped inviting you. We can understand that you don't want to meet with randoms from a Mong Board, and we all respect that, but we secretly wonder whether you're embarrassed about, well, the delta between your online persona and your forum hardman persona. Secretly, some members have mentioned to me that the only time you truly deserve the hardman moniker is when you've just ironed out someone on here for discussing the quality of the food at SMS - and that's more of a reference to the viagral effect that Mrs Tush 'enjoys', from your catering-fuelled anger. Anyway, we all met last Wednesday evening. I was Chair for the evening as CB Fry had sent his apologies, but I did share a note with the Forum that he'd asked to be read, which was entitled "Harmony. On the rights of man to hold different opinions". To be honest, it was a bit sentimental and conspiratorial for my liking. He apologised to everyone that he'd upset over the years, and explained that he'd recently been through some sort of Opinion-Epiphany, brought about when a vision involving Edward de Bono and Mother Teresa came to him one night and urged him to have empathy for different perspectives. He then went on to discuss his volte face on his attitude to the press - thanking comrade pap in the process for his insight, before suggesting that most of the Press exist only to annoy Saints' fans. It was a typed note, and he hadn't signed it as he was apparently "wearing his jacket backwards", but a warden at The Priory had initialled it in his stead. Other members then addressed the forum through The Chair, but the meeting was delayed for some minutes after an ambulance was called to attend to trousers. Unfortunately, david in sweden had just given a very colourful PowerPoint presentation that featured a tartan background, lime and magenta colours, and so many font effects that it must have triggered trousers' latent epilepsy. Things were further delayed when trousers insisted on going to a private hospital, but eventually he was convinced that his immediate health was more important than free market economics. Finally, the The Chair recognised Baj. He rose to he feet and said that he wanted to discuss a difficult situation regarding him and another poster, and it soon became clear that he was referring to you. He'd arrived in The Man's Aston as his Porsche was in for detailing - apparently he'd been driving to the nightsafe at the bank to deposit a load of five pound notes when a fit of the giggles made him spill takeaway curry over the upholstery. Incidentally, did you know that Baj's personalised plate is TRK 15 H - and that The Man's Aston is registered as MUG 5? That's by the by, Baj was standing and looking very smart wearing a very sharp Paul Smith suit, Thomas Pink shirt and shoes by Crocs. He spoke movingly about his relationship with you, and of how you'd been close 'friends' ever since you and he had set up a matchday stall selling ridiculously large bendy hands and other fan-focused tattery. He had the group in his thrall, and a respectful silence fell as he went on to describe the breakdown in your relationship, and of how he taught you the meaning of unrequited. He smiled wistfully as he told Forum of how, at 5 minutes after kickoff, you'd both close up "Bajish's Foam Hands Stall", and run to your seats inside SMS; laughing, joking and looking round with pride at the sea of hats and fancy dress that you'd supplied, before taking your seats 10 minutes after kick-off. He described a movingly close business relationship that might have, on occasion strayed into areas of forbidden colours (like your burberry check against his Barbour waxed number). He got choked up as he described the chance meeting with The Man, and how it changed both of your worlds overnight. We learned that The Man ran the pie and beer concessions within SMS, and as soon as Baj and The Man met, they knew they had to start a saints-based, Internet forum together. Baj described the moment that he told you of their plans as the worst moment of his life, because he knew you'd take it bad. He said that since then your life had spiralled into an anger-fuelled journey of resentment and insecurity towards him, The Man and all of the things that you used to hold dear; the matchday tat, food in the ground, the Mong Board itself. The Chair interrupted at this point, because, as moving as his speech was, I had to ask him if there was a point to the story. He apologised and got straight to the point. He said that since your anger had found expression on this forum, he had decided to keep away. He mentioned some psychological terms that I didn't really understand such as projection, closure and hat-stand. He said that he'd been happy to allow you to snipe at him from the sidelines, and had in fact seen it as playing some sort of role in your recovery - along with moving to Yorkshire and the kettlebells. But, he'd now had a change of heart, and he was feeling uncomfortable about the situation. He assured us that he didn't have an issue with you laying into him on his own forum, but he said that it wasn't right that you were effectively paying him to abuse him. He felt, he said, "dirty". He said that he was happy to charge "the rest of you mugs" a fiver, but charging you had made him feel "like some sort of prostitute". I have to say that Forum was sympathetic to his position, and we passed a motion that whenever you start a thread, or comment about Baj on this forum, we should each post images of S&M-style self-flagellation. Baj then got out a guitar and started playing a cover of The Drugs Don't Work by The Verve. It seemed a little inappropriate, but he is The Little Man. The meeting came to a somewhat chaotic end, as the police had arrived to tow away Chapel End Charlie vintage Austin 7. Apparently, he had left it parked in 1943. In the closing moments, comrade pap, moved a composite motion after his original motion had been challenged by Sour Mush, which led to the somewhat ridiculous compromise that will see all future gatherings closed by singing the words of The Red Flag to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory - camels and committees and all that. Toke's a ****. That really is very good, Halo. I don't hand out bunny ears willy-nilly. It should be coveted. Embarrassingly, that really is the sort of droll stuff my family is victimised with daily. Seriously, I will be found dead with a pair of scissors in my chest, and my wife will be standing over me giggling inanely; explaining to the policeman that she asked me to pass the pair of scissors, but I told her that I could only see one.

I really like what you've done with your hair there, Toke. It really suits you. Truly. You look like a cross between Nucky Thompson and Gollum.

Tush, I'll deal with you later - you naughty boy, when I've got a bit more time.

Alan is good in bed! (Vine).

Telling you that I'm not your pal, pal. See the door of friendship that I've held open all these many years? It's shut rik. But to your question - dunno. Probably something to do with words (usually an anagram of someone's name), or showing everyone how clever I think I am. Or both. So, tell me, do you get wood when you mug off the forum owner on his own manor? I only ask because I get wood when I mug off the mug that mugs off the forum owner on his own manor. U R SHIT, 'K?

You were a professional rugby player? That's not a smoke ring Toke, that's the C*nt Signal shining in the sky. It's being used to call the enslaved C*nt Man to come to the forum, and be a C*nt.

Recognise the crutch? I bet you did, you naughty little boy. Sorry, Toke, I'd love to stay and demean you, but I've got to dash. I'm trying to delete my Google images search history before Mrs Bletch gets home. "Two Men S&M", "Male Dominatrix", etc...

Apologies to you and your shit kru, shit ruk, but we're at crossed purposes. I was wondering how you were able to live with yourself. I mean, you're paying someone (albeit in curry tokens) so that you can demean them; whilst he apparently doesn't give you a second thought, and laughs all the way to the Balti. It's like something Max Mosley would get up to - without the Nazi paraphernalia. Don't you find it, you know, a bit demeaning to pay someone every year so that you can periodically demean them? Perhaps you could just be like the rest of us, and pay your £5 to The Man and The Mini Man so that you can see your name on the Internet and feel better about your sad life. x

Yep. I'd agree with most of that CB Fry, and I offered a list of 'valid' reasons myself - some legal, some discretionary. But, let's see if we can't stretch this shared analogy to breaking point; what if the capitalist motivations you ascribe to The Man were replaced by, let's say a desire for a closer link to the wealthy and powerful Liebherr family? The Man would be controlling Saints-related information flow, whilst extracting fivers from those that were happy to 'discuss' positive things about Saints, and at the same time providing loyal service to the Liebherr family*. I personally find it interesting to see where the discretionary line is drawn by these media sites. I wouldn't be surprised if some use the comments section as a device to reinforce their editorial stance (der!), and to feed their readership self-validatory material, so that in doing so they serve somebody's political ambitions with the expectation of reward someday. I also wouldn't be surprised if pap's site found that media companies by and large turn their comments off for valid reasons such as time, cost and effort. *I guess I should point out that this is an analogy - there is no way that Saints' forum owners would ever attempt to ingratiate themselves with the owners of the club to the detriment of their memberships.

Tell us your secret, Shit Urk.

Apologies for drowning you in my thoughts, but I just thought of an example close to home. Imagine if this site closed comments on threads when Saints had lost, and allowed them to stay open when Saints won. The Man could easily argue that the 'cost' of moderating threads when we win is much less than when we lose. You couldn't argue with the logic he's applying, but what would the impact of such a stance (legitimately made on 'cost' gounds) have on the personality of this site? On it's own that isn't such a problem, but then imagine that The Man controlled all the Saints related discussion forums, and then you start to ask questions.

Very good CB Fry.

Interesting stance, KRG. I think it's important to distance oneself from the emotion as much as is possible, to try to understand what pap is trying to accomplish. Not speaking on behalf of his papship here, and I'm sure he'll chime in if I'm misrepresenting him. Not allowing a paedophile to comment on 8Chan is a restriction of their freedom of speech, in the same way that them not being able to share images would be some form of restriction on their freedom of expression. It's just that many of us believe that these paedophilic desires are wrong, and so society through its representatives has created laws to stop this. Despite most people agreeing that these restrictions are understandable and just, it is still a restriction of those individuals' freedoms - to the point where we no longer consider this legally a 'right'. In the same academic sense of freedom of expression, pap's Freedom Quotient will uncover the facts about which topics and which outlets restrict/don't restrict discussion. Those that restrict discussion are, perhaps only in a minor way, arbitrarily restricting your right to express your views (via their site). It could be that for each topic where a comment restriction applies, there is a valid reason (sub judice, appeal-pending, etc.), other reasons may be 'legitimate', but arbitrarily implemented (such as your 'vile comments' about a woman, too much spam, too costly to moderate, etc). As for the fact that we have no absolute right to comment on their site, I completely agree. And if they allowed no comments site-wide, I'd understand that. But personally I find it interesting to see where they are drawing the line and to try to understand the (potentially legitimate) reasons why. The fact remains that at the moment, nobody knows which articles/categories of articles/publishers have restricted comments. I think stage one for pap is to uncover the 'facts' and make these public in an easy to understand way.

Nope, I've been trying to workout what the h stands for. Go on, you'll have to tell me.

I made the same point to pap on PM BTT (I was a beta testers (basques(sic) in pap's reflected glory)), but thinking about it, it's still pretty damning. The Guardian, in this instance, is arbitrarily (read editorially) not allowing you to comment on certain topics. It may be that this is for 'legitimate' reasons such as legality, but it may be for arbitrary reasons such as cost. To those that value freedom of speech, it's important to know where the line is being drawn, and perhaps to infer for what reason. As pap already knows, I'd like to see the same news story by media outlet. i.e. see which media outlets stop debate on some topics whilst others are happy to encourage debate. Whilst it might simply surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement, it will at least surface those that put cost before freedom of speech/right of reply/enfranchisement. Really nice concept pap, and elegantly implemented - if I may say. - Just not enough word clouds!

Thanks for cheering me up there, Toke. BTW - why do people use the word dour when describing the Scotch? BTW2 - stay away from sharp objects today, oh, and don't wear a tie or take a length of hose* into the garage. BTW3 - it doesn't happen every birthday - it has to be a special one. * not a euphemism.

When I read that, St Chalet, I had a 4K HD vision of you ending that sentence by rotating your index finger toward your mouth where, in its role as a surrogate gun-barrel to your thumb's hammer, you blew down it before placing the gun (hand) back in its holster (pocket) - finally winking at the mouse as your click urged the post onward to The Man's servers. True story.

Isn't this some sort of reference to a poster that owed money to another poster over some form of cat transaction, and despite the poster that owed the money being universally derided on here, he never paid. I have a vague memory of it, but I could be making it all up I suppose. If that is the case, then who are you twiglet? Either way, pleased to meet you, and welcome to TMS*. *That's "Welcome" - in a "I'm now going to run your posts through the Beltch-o-tron to see what you've previously posted about" sort-of-a-way.

How's your head this morning, Toke? Conflicted over your loyalties for last night's game? I know you're a big fan of Basingstoke Town, but at least Shonan beat Yokohama at the w/e. Any other games on last night?

Yeah, there is that Toke. But who couldn't resist a chummy, broad grin when BarSan (*I prefer this to BazSan as it has the arse sound in it - fnarr, fnarr) used to post his weather forecasts on here. Random didn't even cover it. They were usually posted early-ish morning before the meds had properly kicked in, and they were a windolene-polished pane of glass into his psychoactive-deprived, yet wonderful mind. Some might argue that he was the John Lennon of TSW posters, others might insist he was the Ebola virus of posters. But, if we're talking about grinners and winners, as pap mentioned below BarSan was actually proved correct in his assertion that Anfield-Adam was looking for houses in Liverpool. As the saying goes; Justice for the One.

Thanks for clearing that up, Toke. (saintbletch resolutely resists open "bonner-shaped" goal) To be fair to BazSan, I'm not sure he'd been waiting there for a year to return. I think he probably saw the transaction on his bank statement, and decided to see if his login still worked. I'm more concerned about The Man being hauled up on Watchdog or Rogue Traders for taking people's money and then banning them instantly. What we need is for one of these ban-ees to take this all the way to the highest court in the land (or Europe). I'm sure that banning people and then keeping the remains of their fiver after fair warning, is just about defensible. But it doesn't sound like particularly good practice to then tease them by taking another fiver from them, allowing them back in for 78 minutes, and then banning them again. I mean, it's hilarious, but it doesn't sound right. I've seen pyramid selling schemes that are morally less bankrupt than that. Free the Liverpool One! Justice for the One!

Thank you for your recent correspondence Tokyo-Saint, and we'd very much like to assure you that your post is important to us. Unfortunately on this occasion, the first read of your post made no sense in any of the languages or lexical parsers we employ. We suspect that an auto-completing keyboard may have intervened and robbed us of the point you were trying to bring to our attention. With that in mind, we will continue to analyse the text in the hope that a point becomes visible. With tepid regards, saintbletch.

A great post Halo, I'd only go on to add "posting sensibly in TMS" to your list of valid reasons for banning posters.