(This picks up from the dreadful NF thread which should never have been started and I want to see disappearing down the board.)

Mac replies to Roly :- I will protect your right to post on here, long and hard !!

Erm - why exactly? Do the people who don't want to hear mindless abuse have any rights?

People can get far too hung up on this freedom of speech nonsense. The speech on here is devoted to the support of Newcastle United and related football matters plus any special interests that the wide range of contributors care to unzip their anoraks and raise. Most of us were born and bred in Newcastle or have some deep affinity for the place. Having Mackems coming on to plainly lie that we only came because of KK, or just come on to be abusive is a pointless waste of space on this forum, and any "protection of their right" to speak here is sanctimonious claptrap IMHO. The BBS worked perfectly well (much better in fact) without these people. Look at RTG (which I admit I have only done once as I was so appalled). Look at the vileness of the hatred on there and then tell me that we should defend people's right to bring that here. No thank you. This is a place to talk about the Toon, celebrate our Geordieness, rejoice together in any successes and console each other in our (far more frequent!) failures. Above all it is a place for MAKING FRIENDS, some of the finest people I know. So count me out. I will not protect the "right"(???) of people who have no other objective than to make their fellow human beings feel bad or to pour forth scorn and abuse. They have nothing to add to this forum. They are not welcome. That is my view. People are entitled to disagree.

It is very clear to me that a number of Mackems on here, are only interested in unpleasantness. There is only one Mackem on here to date who has upheld the high standards of this board and it's ML3. He must be feel a shade uneasy about the mindless abuse coming from his fellow fans. I hope so. We Geordies have nutters and low life amongst us as well and I will not be defending their right to speak here or anywhere unless they can learn to speak without hatred.

For me the fight is not Magpies Vs Mackems which should be friendly , let me repeat that, FRIENDLY banter only. The fight is Civilisation vs Barbarians, Intelligence vs Morons, Friendship vs HATRED. The one true way is the way of peace and harmony, the other leads to Northern Ireland, Israel and the Palestinians, the mindless horror of Kosovo etc. (Exaggeration? Hah! Anybody fancy a derby game with no police? - there would be maiming and DEATHS - guaranteed, a fact which every abuser should be deeply ashamed of because abuse fuels the pointless hatred.)

I am very pleased that the fine people of this forum have, by and large, not descended into the gutter in response to the taunts and abuse of those who revel in this appalling hatred. But the tone on here is getting worse, the Barbarians aren't winning but they are growing. Nobody IMHO has any "right" to come on here. This, as Sparxx said recently, is our HOME. Anyone can come in as an invited guest. But if they come in and abuse my "family" then they can just as soon get out again - I have no earthly interest in listening to them and even less interest in protecting their spurious "right" to speak here.

So many roads, so much at stake
So many dead ends, I'm at the edge of the lake
Sometimes I wonder what it's gonna take
To find dignity

(Dylan)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2001

Answers

Well said Jonno.

Even in accepted public speaking forums (Speakers Corner etc.) the right to freedom of speech is curtailed as soon as that speech begins to incite violence or racial hatred. As this is essentially a private forum, freedom of speech is not an issue, HOUSE RULES SHOULD BE ADHERED TO.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I hope this does not offend anyone, but, Why do supporters from other clubs come on here, go on about how so and so was banned from THEIR own club sites and how smart THEIR admin mob were to do that. Then carry on in a manner to get thrown off here or complain that their vile invective is deleted?

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I think it's called double standards as in, "Hey you can't stir shit in our room, but don't get upset with us if / when we go ape(!) shit in yours"

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I think we can all say we've had enough now , if its the mackem intention to p1ss us all off then well done lads , you've achieved your goal . I still feel no resentment to the OML's just sad that the overall feeling on here is of non acceptance , and could well be to the long term detriment of this Forum . But do keep up the good work with the non existent addresses and FTM quotes , you are true ambassadors of SAFC and the city of Sunderland . A nicer bunch of people you will never come across . Howay man get a grip and be constructive and adult for a change for the sake of everyone who participates here . FOR THE LAST TIME .

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Yes and no.

I removed postings yesterday that were from people who had nothing useful to say at all, and were purely abusive in nature. I will continue to do that.

I did not remove Roly's postings as they were not offensive, to me anyway. He went over the top (to me) in responding to a joke, and then again to an innocuous challenge from Gav. He was not abusive though.

I am not looking for praise/sympathy but it is a difficult line to tread between seeming to be heavy handed, banning everything not black and white, or not a particular version of black and white, and to letting everything be allowed. Regularly someone shouts 'ban them' at things I don't think are even worth bothering about. The line I have tried to take is that I will not accept things on here I don't want Ben to see which generally means gratuitous swearing.

We seem to like innuendo, we like LR, sometimes, we cope with Rik, we should be able to manage with the odd spurious guest in our home that is slightly different in outlook. If the guest comes in and pisses on the carpet then that's different.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I hadn't read all the other threads before I posted the above. This posting

I dont see the problem with a NF march, its about free speech - the right to demonstrate. I'm a BNP member and we BNP members here in Sunderland dont like the way the NF marchers go to the extreme, but providing they dont then its there right to demonstrate and win more voters. Yeah its no secret that Reidy is one of us but thats his choice, just like 10% of the Sunderland electorate, yet you geordies and your police force which controls us have decided to ban some humans from their democratic right of demonstrating, you commies.

We are not monkeys to be caged.

;-)

-- Makkem (Makkem@racist-scummer.com), August 19, 2001.

is acceptable because it comes from one of the Newcastle regulars ? It is easy (for me) to see why someone who cares about racism would be upset by that posting. Roly did not retaliate with abuse he came back with I think allegations that impose upon anothers freedom (however small) should be given the same proportion of invective and abuse back as the allegation purports to attach to another persons name.... This is not banter it is pathetic and the poster is scum for doing so .

Maybe I have strange sensibilities but I agree with Roly on this. I read his comments without seeing his name first and agreed with them without taking the opposite view just because he supports someone else.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I didn't read the relevant thread (is it still on here?)but I think I have got the gist. The 'freedom of speech' is a very over used and abused term. I haven't been coming on here for very long but this forum is a refreshing change from the mindless abuse that is posted on other sites. The last thing you want is for the NF to be able to peddle their views. I find it appalling that the NF appear to have a foothold in Wearside and no this is not about getting one over on their football team.

What about 'freedom' for black and asian people to go about their daily lives without fear of violence and abuse? It might sound simplistic but isn't that more valuable than some half wit who thinks being in the NF is big and clever to come on this board and be abusive.

If I have got the wrong end of the stick then I am sorry but I have been taken aback by the quotes reproduced from the original thread.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

What have I missed? :)) yes I was trying to wind the mackems up with that comment about the march, apologies if I am in any way responsible for causing trouble...

Disagree with you Jonno that it's getting worse on here, it's getting much better....Superkev is infinitely better than he was when he first started on here, Roly is fine (and full of fairly useful information!) and as you said ML3 is spot on.....

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Gav, I'm pretty sure Jonno was referring to the mindless abuse (FTM and all that cr@p) that swells up every now and again. But in the nature of it, it also dies down pretty quickly. Depending on how next Sunday's game goes, we may get more or they may slunk off into oblivion for a few weeks/months.

For me, I'm happy to see contributions from ML3, Roly and Soops as they have proved to be able to rise above the abuse and offer worthwhile comments. I'd hate it if we only had our own on here - every discussion group needs an alternative view. It's a shame that LR doesn't get on here as much as he used to - perhaps his (work) habits have changed. Even DD in his hay-day had something useful to say (tho normally restricted to the Cabbage when it was "Hey Screach, what do you want to drink?").

In the end, those with worthwhile comments to make will hang around. Those who only have abuse and snidery (??) to contribute will soon disappear when they find no notice is being taken of them. I'm all for freedom of Screach speech - as long as I can control it ;-)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I'm sorry - I fail to see that Soops and Roly (sounds like lunch doesn't it?) do anything positive on here at all. What "useful information" have we had from Roly? They are purely wind up merchants and have shown little interest in promoting harmony between fans.

It is to the credit and patience of people here that they are prepared to make excuses for SK but really, his true colours came out in his first postings and he still struggles, on his own admission, to stay within boundaries which surely should not be difficult.

BTW I have not asked for "bans". I have merely questioned (with incredulity) why Macbeth would protect the "right" of such people to post here.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I think a solution to this problem, as far as we are concerned, is NEVER to respond in kind to the abusers rather than to ban them from the bbs. Certain individuals come on here with the sole purpose of creating mayhem and winding us up - if they succeed they will do it all the more. If we rise above it they will surely see it as a waste of time eventually. Every time I've asked Superkev a question about his posting he's beggard off!

On the "humble pie" thread I posted some info on the arrests at footie grounds story, was told by Roly that I'd made it up and was full of sh*t. I could have taken offence and responded in kind but Roly had seemed reasonably sensible up to that point so I didn't and consequently got a civilised response back. Try treating idiots with respect - it may or may not change them but it will certainly make you feel immensely superior!!

With regard to the freedom of speech issue - because this is a "private" board we can impose what restrictions we like - Macbeth can, I assume, remove offensive postings and block the posters if he so wishes. I'm not sure I want this, however. The question is, are we going to give these idiots the satisfaction of boasting they were "banned" or the victims of "censorship" or are we going to simply rise above it, ignore them and treat them with the contempt they deserve. If they wish to drag the good name of their football club into the gutter by demonstrating that they possess less brain cells that Niall Quinn does yellow cards, let them. It's no skin off our nose after all. If they are kids I suppose you can understand it and expect them to grow out of it. If they are adults behaving like kids well pity is a more sensible response. I do not see, though, that we should withdraw their right of demonstrating just how thick they are if they are stupid enough to come on here to do so.

As with all extremist minorities - make them a "cause celebre" and their all over the front of the papers - ignore them and no one ever hears from them again!!

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

...without order there is nothing but chaos....we MUST have a set of standards here. Without it we become just like any other "RTG" out there. What separates us from RTG is that we strive to be a tad more civil. Now whether this is because we "respect" other opinions, or we choose to be better than the others, I'm not entirely sure. The one thing that must remain constant is respect.

While some may people may entertain the childish rants of certain posers (not posters) on here, very rarely do I. It is so easy to be goaded into a fight, and that's all they come looking for (excuse Lancy Red and a few others). Ignore such idiots and they will simply just go away.

Freedom of speach, sure, if the BBS Gods choose to allow it, fine... that doesn't mean for a second I have to acknowledge it.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Whoops

Sorry for causing so much trouble....

I had a few too many and whilst I knew what I wanted to post (I do not wish to change the sentiments of my posting) I probably could have put it better....

errrr sorry Jonno, Jacko, Gav and others for the cack handed wording but errrrr I don't really want to change my mind....

I acept that the original posting was intended as tongue in cheek but it didn't and doesn't read that way to me....

If I've raised a few blood pressures then a small but significant Mackem victory and glad to have given you the opportunity (albeit unintentional) of taking a great chunk out of my fishing hook....

Onwards and upwards.....

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Roly, Here's hoping you're drowning your sorrows next Sunday. May your hangovers be of enormous proportions ;-)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Just gettin our own back for months and months of "SMB" style abuse by MacBeth & Co on RTG a while back

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Just gettin our own back for months and months

That's what the Israelis and the Palestinians say (for years and years). Until they learn better they will continue to suffer.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Thats that sorted then....

instead of the third way maybe there is the Jonno way.....

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

If I've raised a few blood pressures then a small but significant Mackem victory

So the intention is to raise blood pressure? How very commendable. What an aim in life. That backs up everything I wrote this thread for. You're a childish wind-up merchant. You're like a small boy Roly, being cheeky to others and hiding behind his mam's legs. What small but significant victory? You're 2-0 down against Jacko and have not yet responded to the "Roly" thread leaving me the clear victor there as well.

Grow up Roly.

(Blood Pressure normal you'll be displeased to hear)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Ahhhhh the real Jonno shows his real colours.....

I've no intention of responding to your invective. So far as spin based facts are concerned which are pulled from the Evening Colonical or Sunday Scum.... well you may choose to read those fine organs and base your decision making and views upon their fine editorials but I prefer to deal with hard facts and data alone without the spin...

You really should have a cup of tea a hob nob and a lie down you know....

Olive branch withdrawn....

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

You still haven't pointed out what spin i've been listening to so that I can try and disprove your comments....

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

You're a childish wind-up merchant. You're like a small boy Roly, being cheeky to others and hiding behind his mam's legs. What small but significant victory? You're 2-0 down against Jacko and have not yet responded to the "Roly" thread leaving me the clear victor there as well.

Grow up Roly.

whereas you Jonno are the smart arsed anorak in the corner going "told you so, told you so", unable to rise above the cheeky little kid who wants to play with the big boys. You keep trying to put the cheeky litle kid down even when he joins in with the big boys. Roly comes out with

"Whoops, Sorry for causing so much trouble....

I had a few too many and whilst I knew what I wanted to post (I do not wish to change the sentiments of my posting) I probably could have put it better....

He then makes a comment about raising blood pressure which "backed up everything you wrote this thread for". What about "I was trying to wind the mackems up with that comment about the march". Is that unacceptable from Gav ? Are we to have different levels of people allowed to contribute ?

Jonno I feel just like SuperKev when he first came on and demanded to know the rules of engagement. I tried to explain that debate was fine but abuse wasn't.

Roly came on here today and apolgised for his drunken ramblings on the racism front. He didn't change his views but surely that's acceptable. He makes a throw away comment about raising blood pressure and you're at him again. Be magnaminous, show your better, show you don't need to have the last word. Always. Read what Jacko put, and don't fight her fights for her she can cope fine on her own, without demanding unpayable reparations if she wins.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Roly begins his response by saying :-

I've no intention of responding

I'll take that as a small but significant Magpie victory then. A submission - I was hoping for a knockout. :-)

As a researcher Roly, I am quite certain you know that statistics, and facts are utterly meaningless without interpretation. The interpretation I have supplied was from the authors of the report, who must know better than anyone, what it all means. It doesn't matter which paper carried it - it wasn't spun - it was a quote - ie a fact (you deal in those don't you?)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I've no intention of responding

you selectively and deliberately mised out the ... "to your invective"... part of the posting.....

typical really

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I deliberately chose the words I've no intention of responding and excluded all else.

Invective is something you started remember? - I merely returned it - after trashing your argument. You like to dish it out Roly but you can't take it. I saw no sign of any olive branch.

Macbeth I'm disappointed to be insulted by yourself here because I have taken issue with someone whose right to speak here (and insult me) you defend so passionately. Especially when you seem to have a reputation for having given out much worse on RTG which action, seems to be partly responsible for the current influx of those who have a negative impact here. Never mind. I won't take it personally. I recognise that you feel you have some difficult decisions to make and appreciate your work on here. But I will go on and ensure that I always defeat this kind of person when they try to take me on. I never seek antagonism (like those who go over to RTG) but I will defend myself when it comes my way.

Try and stop me.

:-)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I give up

diddums

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Similarly Jonno, I am glad to see you prefer to believe the muck chucked by an anonymous Sunderland supporter than anything I have ever said on the subject.

I don't have an ego that needs massaged so I won't try and defend my honour with a 'prove it then' type request.

Nuff

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Macbeth - I accused you of nothing and I don't believe/disbelieve what I've read. I always choose my words very carefully but it often seems my efforts are wasted. The sentence is :- you seem to have a reputation for having given out much worse on RTG. I can't think of a more qualified way to put it. That reputation may or may not be deserved. I don't know what you have ever done on RTG if anything at all. I would disapprove if it was to abuse/wind people up which is against what I believe in. But for all I know you have never been there, and if you have you might just have gone to say what lovely colours red and white are.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

So, the Mackems have finally achieved the dubious honour of getting us to tear each other to shreds.

C'mon gang, surely we can rise above that?

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Come on you lot - we're in danger of losing the moral high ground here. Rise above the crap.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Tearing ourselves apart?

OH NO WE ARE NOT.

:-)

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001