Amberexile wrote:It recognises the reality that some people have thrown missiles in the past just as some people have used unacceptable language.
We are supposed to be a community club, in my view we should condone neither unacceptable language nor missile throwing but rather we should be making a stand against both.
To suggest we should have an area where unacceptable language becomes acceptable does beg the question of what else.
We can't ignore the missile throwing and we cant take the pusillanimous approach of making it acceptable.
We shouldn't ignore the issue of unacceptable language and shouldn't take that same approach to it either.

ref23 wrote:

Amberexile wrote:It recognises the reality that some people have thrown missiles in the past just as some people have used unacceptable language.
We are supposed to be a community club, in my view we should condone neither unacceptable language nor missile throwing but rather we should be making a stand against both.
To suggest we should have an area where unacceptable language becomes acceptable does beg the question of what else.
We can't ignore the missile throwing and we cant take the pusillanimous approach of making it acceptable.
We shouldn't ignore the issue of unacceptable language and shouldn't take that same approach to it either.

Yes, I know it was said as a joke but there is a point in there of where do you draw the line and who makes that decision.
Ultimately though, it mainly takes the Michael out of a dumb idea.

Amberexile wrote:To suggest we should have an area where unacceptable language becomes acceptable does beg the question of what else.

With respect, your post totally ignores the really important factor of context. I'd argue that there's no such thing as "unacceptable language"; there's just "language". Its appropriateness depends entirely on what you're saying, to whom, how, and in what company.

As such, the odd f-word and c-bomb might not be something you'd say in front of the vicar in church, but it can be deployed appropriately - maybe even with humour - from the terrace at a football match. As I said in a previous post on this thread, there are plenty of places where you can sit as a family in our ground and not have to hear bad language. But if you stand on a terrace, you're going to hear the odd curse word, and I have no issue with that - it's part and parcel of going to games, and it doesn't bother me.

ref23 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Obviously. I mean how could I hope to have your charm and wit. Not to mention the delightful way you have with words. Nailed more birds. What a chat up line that is. And no swearing.

Charm and wit ooze from me like pus from a freshly squeezed zit.

As I walk around Waitrose, eggs hatch in front of my very own eyes, such is the magnitude of my sexual machismo.

You could never dream to live with me, Einstein; you are the toast to my fried breakfast, the milky-bar to my Toblerone, the billy bear to my sirloin steak.

My personality is insatiable. You, on the other hand, are about as interesting as a tough piece of bird shit stuck on a patio window, and I have little doubt that our bed-post notch counters reflect this reality.

The forum seemed to have gone back to relative tranquillity but the self acclaimed wind up merchant cannot help himself.
Guess what we have lady and girl contributors on hear and would imagine they would be totally repulsed by your comments above.
is the forum in the gutter.
Hope not but you for sure are doing your best to get it there.
Stan ignore him.
Just looking for a bite.
Love Island here we come.

Pretty horrible, unfunny comments yes - nothing I haven't heard before and pretty much, sadly, what I'd expect from some football fans. Going back to segregating the abusive and compulsive swearers, leaving aside the other issues of doing that, wouldn't this mean that those fans would have to self-identify in order to be segregated. I'm not sure that a number of them would have the self-awareness to realise that this proposal applied to them.

Harps62 wrote:

ref23 wrote:
Charm and wit ooze from me like pus from a freshly squeezed zit.

As I walk around Waitrose, eggs hatch in front of my very own eyes, such is the magnitude of my sexual machismo.

You could never dream to live with me, Einstein; you are the toast to my fried breakfast, the milky-bar to my Toblerone, the billy bear to my sirloin steak.

My personality is insatiable. You, on the other hand, are about as interesting as a tough piece of bird shit stuck on a patio window, and I have little doubt that our bed-post notch counters reflect this reality.

The forum seemed to have gone back to relative tranquillity but the self acclaimed wind up merchant cannot help himself.
Guess what we have lady and girl contributors on hear and would imagine they would be totally repulsed by your comments above.
is the forum in the gutter.
Hope not but you for sure are doing your best to get it there.
Stan ignore him.
Just looking for a bite.
Love Island here we come.

Fair play Harps. I think I have to give credit to Ref 23. This information comes from a person who is 100% reliable.

I can confirm that not only is Ref 23 insatiable in his sexual appetite but he has a wide range of experience in all forms of sexual endeavour. Not just more than me, but more, much more than each and every poster on this board combined. His sexuality is legendary, his tastes robust, his desires voracious.

Admittedly none of this experience is with other people but nobody's perfect,

And his jokes are much better than Ref22

westsider wrote:Pretty horrible, unfunny comments yes - nothing I haven't heard before and pretty much, sadly, what I'd expect from some football fans. Going back to segregating the abusive and compulsive swearers, leaving aside the other issues of doing that, wouldn't this mean that those fans would have to self-identify in order to be segregated. I'm not sure that a number of them would have the self-awareness to realise that this proposal applied to them.

That's interesting. But of course it doesn't mean just swearing but within reason boisterous behaviour. Yorkshire cricket have one stand at Headingley, if memory serves the west stand where people who want to drink and be loud go and it does seem to work quite well.

I don't suppose any of us know for sure. Although in response to your first point above it's pretty clear that there are some who seem to enjoy being unpleasant.

Bring back Ref 22.
His continual spoiling of every Grandstand thread was legendary when we would be 2-1 up with a minute to go and he would give us some score in Division 1.
Albeit I would rather put up with that than his successor who maybe rather than being in the pen with all the other blasphemers could be in the front actually in the gutter.
Back to serious dialogue Stans idea would never work as nobody would admit to the qualification criteria to be admitted into this free for all section.
Its a non starter but also I wouldn't dream of taking youngsters along especially if in the section next to Ref23 and his pals.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

westsider wrote:Pretty horrible, unfunny comments yes - nothing I haven't heard before and pretty much, sadly, what I'd expect from some football fans. Going back to segregating the abusive and compulsive swearers, leaving aside the other issues of doing that, wouldn't this mean that those fans would have to self-identify in order to be segregated. I'm not sure that a number of them would have the self-awareness to realise that this proposal applied to them.

That's interesting. But of course it doesn't mean just swearing but within reason boisterous behaviour. Yorkshire cricket have one stand at Headingley, if memory serves the west stand where people who want to drink and be loud go and it does seem to work quite well.

I don't suppose any of us know for sure. Although in response to your first point above it's pretty clear that there are some who seem to enjoy being unpleasant.

Its what was called the Western Terrace couple of cricket grounds in Australia did the same

4:30pm. It’s getting close to Stan’s dinner time, which presumably means Ref23 is ... [shudders]

I think this one comes down to whether you think the onus is on people who don't want to hear swearing to do something to avoid it or whether you think the onus is on everyone else to modify their behaviour for the benefit of the minority who are upset by it.

For me, it's an environment populated by adults unless you make an exception to protect children, as opposed to the other way around.

ref23 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Obviously. I mean how could I hope to have your charm and wit. Not to mention the delightful way you have with words. Nailed more birds. What a chat up line that is. And no swearing.

Charm and wit ooze from me like pus from a freshly squeezed zit.

As I walk around Waitrose, eggs hatch in front of my very own eyes, such is the magnitude of my sexual machismo.

You could never dream to live with me, Einstein; you are the toast to my fried breakfast, the milky-bar to my Toblerone, the billy bear to my sirloin steak.

My personality is insatiable. You, on the other hand, are about as interesting as a tough piece of bird shit stuck on a patio window, and I have little doubt that our bed-post notch counters reflect this reality.

Fair play, this did make me LOL.

The most hilarious part of it all, is that people have responded on the assumption I was being serious.

Serious or not your first comment got removed.