a poster from the UK, poster from Jacksonville, CA, etc.
That's pretty cool, isn't it?
Very cool. Someone from New Brunswick just voted. It goes to show the size of the community extends to some varied locales outside of the tri-state area.
Slade was known as cvic years back. And under that handle, had a pretty good track record.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Slade was known as cvic years back. And under that handle, had a pretty good track record.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
This same arguement has been going on for literally decades.
Yet you still have people here claiming inside info.
Slade was known as cvic years back. And under that handle, had a pretty good track record.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
I think keeping him will discourage others with information to step forward. When someone has actual information they may hesitate to post here because of the comments directed at Slade. There will be several posters who will assume that it is another troll just trying to get people riled up.
Not sure why everyone gets upset. No need to ban him, he's not abusive or an asshole.
Evidently, you haven't read his posts on the few threads he happens to return to. He should be banned for those alone, is recent bannings are a barometer.
I voted to ban but I have changed my mind. I can choose to not believe what he says. I had some diversion for minutes the other day. If it is possible please change my vote.
If he is right or if he is wrong (and knowingly so), how does whatever particular piece of (possibly misleading) knowledge impact your life and well-being?
I can't see how any stupid shit he posts comes close to violating the ToS.
I voted to ban but I have changed my mind. I can choose to not believe what he says. I had some diversion for minutes the other day. If it is possible please change my vote.
Great. Now we're going to have to count hanging chads.
Slade was known as cvic years back. And under that handle, had a pretty good track record.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
I think keeping him will discourage others with information to step forward. When someone has actual information they may hesitate to post here because of the comments directed at Slade. There will be several posters who will assume that it is another troll just trying to get people riled up.
Are we making money or saving lives based on that information? Or lack of it?
comes true.... and I dont mean at the end of the season. He indicated that it would happen sooner vs later. So, if McAdoo is still here at the end of Nov then by Slade
Let's give Slade to the start of our last game of the season.
If not true by then, we find him, take him out and shoot him.
At least he can't post under an alias..Ever. ;-)
Not sure why everyone gets upset. No need to ban him, he's not abusive or an asshole.
Evidently, you haven't read his posts on the few threads he happens to return to. He should be banned for those alone, is recent bannings are a barometer.
I voted to ban. One of the reasons I come to this site is to get late breaking news, football and non-football. There is nothing more annoying than to see a fake news headline with nothing to back it up. It makes no difference to me if its some asshole who fancies himself an insider or some juvenile looking to stir the pot. Its perfectly okay to speculate or pass on rumors but it needs to be in the original post. In other words its OK to post a thread title:
So and so says: Mcadoo to be fired.
maybe even
Rumor: McAdoo to be fired
or even
Mens room attendant at MetLife: McAdoo to be fired.
What should no be tolerated is stating as fact
McAdoo to be fired
unless its been reported as fact by a reputable source.
That's pretty cool, isn't it?
Keep
"Refresh" Keep
Repeat..
Quote:
a poster from the UK, poster from Jacksonville, CA, etc.
That's pretty cool, isn't it?
Very cool. Someone from New Brunswick just voted. It goes to show the size of the community extends to some varied locales outside of the tri-state area.
Shades of the Warren Sapp click-a-thon...
This...
before getting banned that Slade's getting here.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
Don't ban the guy. Just don't take anything he says seriously.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
This same arguement has been going on for literally decades.
Yet you still have people here claiming inside info.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
I think keeping him will discourage others with information to step forward. When someone has actual information they may hesitate to post here because of the comments directed at Slade. There will be several posters who will assume that it is another troll just trying to get people riled up.
Evidently, you haven't read his posts on the few threads he happens to return to. He should be banned for those alone, is recent bannings are a barometer.
I thought area junk was gone....
just kiddin. he has committed no bannable offense.
Don't ban the guy. Just don't take anything he says seriously.
I can't see how any stupid shit he posts comes close to violating the ToS.
Assert your authority.
Great. Now we're going to have to count hanging chads.
Quote:
Slade was known as cvic years back. And under that handle, had a pretty good track record.
I have not voted yet, but am wondering if banning Slade will discourage others who potentially have inside information from posting. As annoying as Slade has been recently, do we run the risk of chasing away other insiders?
Interested in your thoughts.
I think keeping him will discourage others with information to step forward. When someone has actual information they may hesitate to post here because of the comments directed at Slade. There will be several posters who will assume that it is another troll just trying to get people riled up.
Same.
I called it months ago, just Brett, Arc and myself will be running the show here. That's fine with me.
It's pretty pathetic isn't it
This is entertainment at the end of the day. It’s no affecting my finances.
What has hitdog ever done to you?
If not true by then, we find him, take him out and shoot him.
At least he can't post under an alias..Ever. ;-)
Quote:
Not sure why everyone gets upset. No need to ban him, he's not abusive or an asshole.
Evidently, you haven't read his posts on the few threads he happens to return to. He should be banned for those alone, is recent bannings are a barometer.
I just dont take him seriously.
So and so says: Mcadoo to be fired.
maybe even
Rumor: McAdoo to be fired
or even
Mens room attendant at MetLife: McAdoo to be fired.
What should no be tolerated is stating as fact
McAdoo to be fired
unless its been reported as fact by a reputable source.