Shane Warne/BingLeeElectric etc.

[Richard]

I know. I like to make posts that make people enquire after me, remember? Makes me feel important.

Anyhow - no-one else really needed to know what I was on about, TBH.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I see he's been banned again. Now I'm not exactly sticking up for the bloke, as he's obviously a bit of a stirring divot, but I don't think he'd done anything outrageous in his latest incarnation. His thread about Vaughan's front foot raised an interesting point I thought. I appreciate there's a ban on dual accounts & all, but of late a certain long-standing member's behaviour has probably been worse than SW/BLE/Prakesh. IMHO, obviously.

 

[Jamee999]

I see he's been banned again. Now I'm not exactly sticking up for the bloke, as he's obviously a bit of a stirring divot, but I don't think he'd done anything outrageous in his latest incarnation. His thread about Vaughan's front foot raised an interesting point I thought. I appreciate there's a ban on dual accounts & all, but of late a certain long-standing member's behaviour has probably been worse than SW/BLE/Prakesh. IMHO, obviously.

Listen, if you think I've been that bad, just come out and say it

 

[pasag]

I see he's been banned again. Now I'm not exactly sticking up for the bloke, as he's obviously a bit of a stirring divot, but I don't think he'd done anything outrageous in his latest incarnation. His thread about Vaughan's front foot raised an interesting point I thought. I appreciate there's a ban on dual accounts & all, but of late a certain long-standing member's behaviour has probably been worse than SW/BLE/Prakesh. IMHO, obviously.

A bit harsh for mine but since you haven't mentioned anyone by name I wont respond to any of the points.

On a side note,I was thinking that BLE is always going to get an account and he'll always be around. Perhaps we should just give him one account, wipe the slate clean and tell him to act within the forum rules. Who knows? Maybe he'd start acting normally or even better yet give up. It'll never happen, but I think it'd be the right way to go.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A bit harsh for mine but since you haven't mentioned anyone by name I wont respond to any of the points.

On a side note,I was thinking that BLE is always going to get an account and he'll always be around. Perhaps we should just give him one account, wipe the slate clean and tell him to act within the forum rules. Who knows? Maybe he'd start acting normally or even better yet give up. It'll never happen, but I think it'd be the right way to go.

Didn't mean you in all fairness.

 

[pasag]

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Spoiler: He did.







And Bruce Willis is dead the whole time.

 

[pasag]

Spoiler: He did.







And Bruce Willis is dead the whole time.

Shouldn't you be doing Visual Basics or something?

 

[Richard]

I see he's been banned again. Now I'm not exactly sticking up for the bloke, as he's obviously a bit of a stirring divot, but I don't think he'd done anything outrageous in his latest incarnation. His thread about Vaughan's front foot raised an interesting point I thought. I appreciate there's a ban on dual accounts & all, but of late a certain long-standing member's behaviour has probably been worse than SW/BLE/Prakesh. IMHO, obviously.

A bit harsh for mine but since you haven't mentioned anyone by name I wont respond to any of the points.

On a side note,I was thinking that BLE is always going to get an account and he'll always be around. Perhaps we should just give him one account, wipe the slate clean and tell him to act within the forum rules. Who knows? Maybe he'd start acting normally or even better yet give up. It'll never happen, but I think it'd be the right way to go.

I really think you should realise (Zac that is) that such a thing is simply never, ever going to happen.

DB - so what, if this latest account didn't - yet - happen to have made the usual stupid posts? You're suggesting that every time he opens a new account we should give him a fresh chance? Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it.

SW\BLE is banned and he should not be allowed back just because he's persistent and most banned members aren't.

BTW, it was perfectly obvious who you were on about, too. I simply cannot believe you think I'm behaving worse than him just because I call him a **** and tell him to **** off from time to time, especially when he makes banal and idiotic comments like that about Duncan Fletcher.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I really think you should realise (Zac that is) that such a thing is simply never, ever going to happen.

DB - so what, if this latest account didn't - yet - happen to have made the usual stupid posts? You're suggesting that every time he opens a new account we should give him a fresh chance? Would you advocate such a tactic for a murderer on a triple-life sentence who repeatedly escaped jail yet never looked like reoffending? I doubt it.

Wow. If you were actually trying to go for the most hideously inappropriate analogy, then well done. We're talking about a bloke who behaves like a bit of a tool on a sports discussion forum for heaven's sake, not a criminal!

SW\BLE is banned and he should not be allowed back just because he's persistent and most banned members aren't.

BTW, it was perfectly obvious who you were on about, too. I simply cannot believe you think I'm behaving worse than him just because I call him a **** and tell him to **** off from time to time, especially when he makes banal and idiotic comments like that about Duncan Fletcher.

You disagree with him, fine. But it's not your place to call him a c-u-next-tuesday & tell him to eff off. As a senior poster you should try to set an example, not willfully break forum rules on abuse. Prince EWS reported his posts & he was soon banned, so there are other more mature routes to take.

& other banned members have come back & been good value posters (I'm thinking of FRAZ & Cass here) so I don't think SW's a totally lost cause. He obviously knows a bit about the sport even if he is something of a troll.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Totally agree with Richard here. I don't see why he should be given any more chances than any other banned member, just because he keeps coming back.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You disagree with him, fine. But it's not your place to call him a c-u-next-tuesday & tell him to eff off. As a senior poster you should try to set an example, not willfully break forum rules on abuse.

Heh, just when you think you can't be in a bigger state of disbelief...

 

[Richard]

Wow. If you were actually trying to go for the most hideously inappropriate analogy, then well done. We're talking about a bloke who behaves like a bit of a tool on a sports discussion forum for heaven's sake, not a criminal!

So I was exaggerating - so what? You know perfectly well what I mean. Every step of the situation was exaggerated equally. It's a perfectly acceptible analogy.

You disagree with him, fine. But it's not your place to call him a c-u-next-tuesday & tell him to eff off. As a senior poster you should try to set an example, not willfully break forum rules on abuse. Prince EWS reported his posts & he was soon banned, so there are other more mature routes to take.

The rules pertain to abuse towards other members. As far as I'm concerned, BLE is not a member - there's been plenty of insults thrown the way of banned members in the past. Insulting a banned member is totally different to insulting an accepted one.

BTW - it was a t-uw-and-tuesday that I was calling him.

& other banned members have come back & been good value posters (I'm thinking of FRAZ & Cass here) so I don't think SW's a totally lost cause. He obviously knows a bit about the sport even if he is something of a troll.

I've done the FRAZ \ Cass comparisons at least once before - think it might have been earlier this thread. There's a massive difference between being banned once and asking for a 2nd chance as compared with creating 50 accounts, being a complete nuscience and simply trying to get around a ban. SW\BLE is a complete lost cause, we've seen in a whole 3 years and more that he's never, ever going to change. FRAZ and Cass were totally different.

 

[adharcric]

By the way, LOL at np10 trying to have some fun and getting owned in the other thread.

 

[Matteh]

Think some of this is worthy of a rollyeyes.

 

[Prince EWS]

I see he's been banned again. Now I'm not exactly sticking up for the bloke, as he's obviously a bit of a stirring divot, but I don't think he'd done anything outrageous in his latest incarnation. His thread about Vaughan's front foot raised an interesting point I thought. I appreciate there's a ban on dual accounts & all, but of late a certain long-standing member's behaviour has probably been worse than SW/BLE/Prakesh. IMHO, obviously.

I don't see why he should be allowed to get around his ban simply because he created a new account, to be honest. He didn't do anything completely outrageous on his last account, granted, but he's already been banned and he has to serve that ban. The fact that he causes problems with other members clearly disrupts the forum as well.

Now, if he sent James an email apologising and asked for a second chance, I wouldn't really have much of a problem with it. Creating new accounts to avoid his ban is a totally different matter though and he should be banned for that very reason, whether he improves as a member or not.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Shouldn't you be doing Visual Basics or something?

(H)

Actually, VB is programming for babies. Worst language.

 

[adharcric]

Richard, you seem more interested in BLE and SP than you do in cricket.

Said it before and I'll say it again - you provide a lot more value when you stick to the latter.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you seem more interested in BLE and SP than you do in cricket.

Not at all, though clearly I need to do something about it if it seems that way.

Amazed you'd say such a thing about the latter, mind - I've barely mentioned him for a good couple of weeks.

I am, nonetheless, very much keen to remove BLE from the forum, very much so. And TBH, I make no apologies for that.

 

[Richard]

Think some of this is worthy of a rollyeyes.

Not really a lot of use, TBH, unless you say what.