Long - Time to go.

[brendywendy]

stats are good, opinions are good

we can have both.

[Wycombe Royal]

I discuss football, Hoop.

I just don't make unsupported guestimates

You don't discuss football - you post and over analyse statistics with very few QUALITATIVE comments.

Guestimates? Why does everything have to be about numbers? Just go away (or at least cut down the number of repetitive posts containing the same statistics). I thought I came across as argumentative, arrogant and condescending. It seems I have a lot to more to learn on how to perfect that.

But of course you won't listen, because you can't. You won't change, because you can't. I think it just one big ego trip for you having all these people getting wound up by what you post.

Anyway, my ignore list has a new name on it.

[brendywendy]

ignore lists are for gays

[cmonurz]

Has Snowball been warned off, or did his keyboard explode?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Has Snowball been warned off, or did his keyboard explode?

Let's hope so - he's single-handedly made "The Team" board unvisitable.

[Gav]

Has Snowball been warned off, or did his keyboard explode?

Let's hope so - he's single-handedly made "The Team" board unvisitable.

'greed.

[brendywendy]

not singlehandedly- was only all the bites and responses that got the post rate up.

[Stranded]

not singlehandedly- was only all the bites and responses that got the post rate up.

It's impossible not to respond at times though.

[Snowball]

Has Snowball been warned off, or did his keyboard explode?

I had to visit my Plastic Palm-Tree Factory

[under the tin]

Mate,
There is no basis in maths or statistics for this, but belive me.
Sometimes, less is more.

[Ian Royal]

....this forum no longer seems to be about RFC, it is just about meaningless stats and arguments about them.

This forum has gone down the pan big time and I think Graham or the mods need to do something about it before it ruins it for good.

I agree totally with this.

I'd like to ignore snowball, but he's getting very difficult to ignore through the volume and make up of his posts, and the generally rubbish that fill them up. To an extent I think he needs to be challenged, and, having had a quiet couple of weeks at work I've done that.

Apparently I've 'formally' requested he got banned. If I knew how I would!

I think a few of us have contributed more than we'd like to in the direction the board has gone over the last few weeks as snowballs stats, the application, interpretation and presentation of them has been challenged. One thing I would say is that it's been the usually more fair minded and rational posters doing it. That must say something?

I'm back to flat out at work now and so I'm switching off the snowball stuff from now on and hoping that the board gets back to discussing football.

I'll hold my hands up. When snowball first joined I was an utter shit to him and I wish I hadn't been, I genuinely regret it. But I feel his reactions and posting since (probably partly provoked by me) have almost vindicated my initial reaction.

I've tried to ignore him, but it's so hard to do so as you've said because of the size and frequency of his posts. And I genuinely think that a lot of his posts should be challenged.

And I will completely own up to reporting his posts to a mod the other day because he went beyond belief in posting 9 (NINE) posts in a row. And I was asked by the mod if I thought the whole thread should be removed or just individual posts.

My reply was essentially at most individual posts and warning to stop spamming and behave.

So whilst I often wish he'd sod off, even I (and he appears to consider me as his nemisis) haven't seriously asked that he is banned.

[Snowball]

I've tried to ignore him, but it's so hard to do so as you've said because of the size and frequency of his posts.

Average Number of posts per day 8.84 = cmonurz EDIT: Added for Fairness to Ian
Average Number of posts per day 7.64 = Ian Royal
Average number of posts per day 4.84 = Snowball


You post an average of 3 posts per day MORE than me (from your radio-listening ivory tower)

[Ian Royal]

More meaningless stats.

I've posted regularly on here and the other boards for the last 8 years or more. You post in massive bursts over short periods of activity. I've never spammed more than three posts in a row (you did NINE in a row yesterday and regularly do two - three) and those are the absolute exception and I extremely rarely cover half a page in stats and never follow immediately after with another half a page of stats.

And when someone tells me I'm out of order I at least think about winding my neck in a bit.

EDIT: My name is Ian and I am a post-a-holic. I have a problem and I recognise this. I have also discovered the Edit function.

[Snowball]

Ian, you still average close on twice my posts per day AND YOU GET YOUR INFO FROM RADIO.

At least I actually watch live games.


Big deal that I sometimes have a few days free and concentrate on a subject. So?

11.2% of all my posts have been in a single thread (Shane Long) and at least 20% of all my posts have been defending Shane Long.

What else is a father supposed to do?

[Wimb]

Ian, you still average close on twice my posts per day AND YOU GET YOUR INFO FROM RADIO.

At least I actually watch live games.


Big deal that I sometimes have a few days free and concentrate on a subject. So?

11.2% of all my posts have been in a single thread (Shane Long) and at least 20% of all my posts have been defending Shane Long.

What else is a father supposed to do?

Oh shut up you hypocritical little cretin,

Ian made a pretty honest post about making mistakes etc and his rationale and then you once again come in all guns blazing with stupid meaningless stats. Get off your high horse about watching games as you've already been caught out trying to make judgements on players like Forster you've never seen.

For the record my own feelings on why I get involved in these threads mirrors Stranded, Hoop and Ian in that you want to ignore it but you feel that the information being presented is so inherently flawed that you can't just let it slide.

[Stranded]

Quite.

The way I always looked at this board was that it was an online equivalent of the chat in the pub post match, everyone with their obviously flawed ideas of what they've just seen but a lively debate had nonetheless - occasionally with people conceding ground etc.

Now, it seems to be turning in the worlds most boring lecture. Where not one student can even question the lecturer because "he knows best".

[Royal Rother]

Ridiculous criticism of Snowball imo.

He confines his posts to 3 or 4 threads, responds individually to many many posts and strongly defends his corner and his viewpoint. So?

I enjoy his posts, I enjoy Stranded's, Ian's, cmonurz's, Wimb's, and HB's (to name a few) but I only read a fraction of the contributions to these threads. I dip into Snowball's stats and think to myself, "that's interesting" and move on. Just accept them for what they are - an interestingly different view of a player's contribution to the team. Who cares if the reader doesn't believe that stats have a big part to play in football? It's a free world and different views are allowed.

Personally speaking I enjoy a good stat and produce a view teeny-weeny ones of my own but but the thought of extracting that level of detail, let alone then analysing it further and pulling it apart, does not fill me with joy. But generally, in principle, and in these isolated cases, I respect the guy who spends his time building the stats more than those who try to discredit them.

(But I'd respect him more if he cut the condescension. But then I've been guilty of that too on many occasions.)

[Snowball]

Ridiculous criticism of Snowball imo.

(But I'd respect him more if he cut the condescension. But then I've been guilty of that too on many occasions.)

I'd respect me more if I did, RR, but take a careful look and you'll see "they started it"
and have never stopped. I was ridiculed and pilloried from my very first post/thread.


Of course it was, "Shane Long" (is a good player) but what the hey.


Just take a look. I could post almost anything and along comes the three-headed monster to reply in the opposite.

If i started slagging Shane, they'd probably start saying, "Actually I think he's rather good..."

[cmonurz]

Problem is Snowball, you take disagreement as 'ridicule', argument as 'pilliored'. They are not the same.

[Snowball]

Problem is Snowball, you take disagreement as 'ridicule', argument as 'pilliored'. They are not the same.

You ever studied "abuse", "rz"? I have.

I bet I could quote a few hundred unequivocally hostile, abusive, deprecating remarks
addressed to me impugning my sanity, my integrity etc etc etc.

I LOVE disagreement. I don't have any problem with disagreement. In fact it's
way more interesting than agreement. What's the point in agreeing something?

"I think Kebe falls over a lot."
"I agree."
"Oh. I..."

"I think Long is not very good."
"I, too, think Long is not very good, and i love your posts."
"Than You. What shall we talk about now?"



If you sincerely believe that folks "merely" disagree with me, then you aren't reading very well. Get a job, get a life, you're a joke, you're mental, can we ban him, you're on ignore, you've ruined the board, go away, shut-the-fack-up, you're out of control, you need a woman..."

Yeah rational, well-argued disagreement, sure..