What I want for Griz athletics

[uptopgriz]

Rosey and Uptop, and their incessant and repetitive nonsense, would disappear. Enough is enough. It’s ruining egriz. Payton?

Anyone agree with me?

You’d think the other mods would do a bit more too. Part of the problem is the lack of interest by yhe mods to actually follow the rules set up in the site. It would be better to get 4-5 people on board that would actually ban the rule breakers permanently. Not hard to figure out who certain posters are. If one username is permanently banned then all should be. That includes WestCoast and Growlers alternate identities. For me, this web site is slowly devolving because of the lack of interest of those “in charge”.

Here's one of the rules you and Hoops violate continually and should be sanction for your transgressions. "Please don't hijack threads by turning subject away from its original purpose."

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

You’d think the other mods would do a bit more too. Part of the problem is the lack of interest by yhe mods to actually follow the rules set up in the site. It would be better to get 4-5 people on board that would actually ban the rule breakers permanently. Not hard to figure out who certain posters are. If one username is permanently banned then all should be. That includes WestCoast and Growlers alternate identities. For me, this web site is slowly devolving because of the lack of interest of those “in charge”.

Here's one of the rules you and Hoops violate continually and should be sanction for your transgressions. "Please don't hijack threads by turning subject away from its original purpose."

I am amazed by people that try to justify their actions by pointing out others rather than just doing the right thing.

 

[uptopgriz]

Here's one of the rules you and Hoops violate continually and should be sanction for your transgressions. "Please don't hijack threads by turning subject away from its original purpose."

I am amazed by people that try to justify their actions by pointing out others rather than just doing the right thing.

You probably favor oppression too. I think if you actually read the rules you'll notice nowhere does it require you to only say what some think are supportive statements. Its a fan message board for the good and bad of what an individual fan thinks.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Pretty revealing seeing all of the posters who don't believe in the first amendment. Let them be counted.

I don't see the connection, correlation, analogy or your point. Show me where Congress wrote a law stating chat room moderators wrote a law prohibiting free speech? A private entity can censor their users. Pretty cool. Separation of bull fecal matter and state...

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am amazed by people that try to justify their actions by pointing out others rather than just doing the right thing.

You probably favor oppression too. I think if you actually read the rules you'll notice nowhere does it require you to only say what some think are supportive statements. Its a fan message board for the good and bad of what an individual fan thinks.

I favor you quit making assumptions and actually just let your reading comprehension kick in...it would probably save you some time in your life by not wasting it on posts like the one quoted.

 

[alabamagrizzly]

I agree that upyoursgriz and rosey are obnoxious but I’ve never been a fan of the foe button. For one, I enjoy antagonizing people that say dumb things, just ask PR about racists and spousal abuse.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Pretty revealing seeing all of the posters who don't believe in the first amendment. Let them be counted.

I don't see the connection, correlation, analogy or your point. Show me where Congress wrote a law stating chat room moderators wrote a law prohibiting free speech? A private entity can censor their users. Pretty cool. Separation of bull fecal matter and state...

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Well, at least you have the gonads to state your views to suppress free speech

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Here's one of the rules you and Hoops violate continually and should be sanction for your transgressions. "Please don't hijack threads by turning subject away from its original purpose."

I am amazed by people that try to justify their actions by pointing out others rather than just doing the right thing.

And just what is the "right thing"? .............. being a chronic Kool-Aid fan and afraid to post anything which may rile the Hauck lovers?

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Only an whiny bitch invertebrate would want any poster on an athletic site to be banned. If they don't like reading a post, don't read it. Nobody makes anyone read a post. I have to endure dozens of ridiculous non-football posts by CDA and his band of merry men. But I don't whine to ban him from posting

So is this you admitting that it has nothing to do with the first amendment?

No, I'm not into semantics, but it is a statement to count the panty-wearing whiny advocates for suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Should be pretty simple to understand. Do you support banning me?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am amazed by people that try to justify their actions by pointing out others rather than just doing the right thing.

And just what is the "right thing"? .............. being a chronic Kool-Aid fan and afraid to post anything which may rile the Hauck lovers?

I would start with not trying to justify your actions based on the actions of others. You can drink any kool-aid you want, just might try not to be a giant douche when pushing your favorite flavor.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So is this you admitting that it has nothing to do with the first amendment?

No, I'm not into semantics, but it is a statement to count the panty-wearing whiny advocates for suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Should be pretty simple to understand. Do you support banning me?

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

No, I'm not into semantics, but it is a statement to count the panty-wearing whiny advocates for suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Should be pretty simple to understand. Do you support banning me?

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

Oh, really? But, who determines the basis of fact, you? And if someone posts something you don't think is "fact", you advocate banning them? Sweet. Nice spin job, but I get your point. So, are YOU a good poster? Please explain why if you are able. Should be good.

One can always tell who is losing an argument, when they focus on mundane technicalities, or typos, but dance around the topic at hand.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

No, I'm not into semantics, but it is a statement to count the panty-wearing whiny advocates for suppressing opinions they don't agree with. Should be pretty simple to understand. Do you support banning me?

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

Do you mean it's annoying as fuck if someone posts the same thing 600 times and personally insults anyone who disagrees?

 

[horribilisfan8184]

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

Oh, really? But, who determines the basis of fact, you? And if someone posts something you don't think is "fact", you advocate banning them? Sweet. Nice spin job, but I get your point. So, are YOU a good poster? Please explain why if you are able. Should be good.

One can always tell who is losing an argument, when they focus on mundane technicalities, or typos, but dance around the topic at hand.

I sense someone who never got in the last word as a child.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

Oh, really? But, who determines the basis of fact, you? And if someone posts something you don't think is "fact", you advocate banning them? Sweet. Nice spin job, but I get your point. So, are YOU a good poster? Please explain why if you are able. Should be good

I guess facts are just semantics too for a guy like you. Not sure I would classify myself as good or bad.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

You would think the first amendment is pretty simple to understand, but alas. I also don't think it is about "opinions they don't agree with" and much more about how you go about expressing them. As for banning, I just ignore most the crap you post over and over or laugh about your constant whining. I could suggest being a better poster to get your point across, and then the subject of "banning" wouldn't be a thing. I don't agree with banning someone for an opinion that has a basis of fact.

Do you mean it's annoying as fudge if someone posts the same thing 600 times and personally insults anyone who disagrees?

Aren't you rich, dude? talk about 600 meaningless posts, none of which have ANY relevance to Grizzly athletics, and your picture will be right there! Either attempts to be funny, or sophomoric pissing contests with Cat fans.

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Oh, really? But, who determines the basis of fact, you? And if someone posts something you don't think is "fact", you advocate banning them? Sweet. Nice spin job, but I get your point. So, are YOU a good poster? Please explain why if you are able. Should be good

I guess facts are just semantics too for a guy like you. Not sure I would classify myself as good or bad.

spin-master

 

[RoseyMustGo]

Oh, really? But, who determines the basis of fact, you? And if someone posts something you don't think is "fact", you advocate banning them? Sweet. Nice spin job, but I get your point. So, are YOU a good poster? Please explain why if you are able. Should be good.

One can always tell who is losing an argument, when they focus on mundane technicalities, or typos, but dance around the topic at hand.

I sense someone who never got in the last word as a child.

I'm a counter puncher. If the sh*t comes at me, I send it back

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I sense someone who never got in the last word as a child.

I'm a counter puncher. If the sh*t comes at me, I send it back

Like I said, it is not about what you post, it is how you go about posting it. Thanks for proving the point.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Do you mean it's annoying as fudge if someone posts the same thing 600 times and personally insults anyone who disagrees?

Aren't you rich, dude? talk about 600 meaningless posts, none of which have ANY relevance to Grizzly athletics, and your picture will be right there! Either attempts to be funny, or sophomoric pissing contests with Cat fans.

I only have varsity pissing matches with Cat fans. You wouldn't know much about varsity anything. You didn't even attend UM.