CI

I'm not wrong. You are . You need to backtrack and earn yourself a modicum of respect.

So why did Ingham join in ? He had no previous input, just decides to wade in with the gang.

My opinion is valid, mods can keep giving me points and the "gang" can keep posting for points.

I will maintain my position , until I'm banned if needs be.

You'll all get your way soon. I've been given 6 warning points for defending and debating my opinion.

This site is like North Korea.

Doesn't answer my question...

And it's a bullying culture

You'll all get your way soon. I've been given 6 warning points for defending and debating my opinion.

This site is like North Korea.

It's not really been raised as a debating point before.

Things have escalated monumentally since 32Red for example.

No they weren't were they, you described the deal as "ok" and even "decent" no mention of ethics from you, no sign of objection. Your only complaint was it wasn't enough money to keep pace with Spurs.

 

And no we weren't debating purely on Faulkner, the first quote of yours was in the thread about McLeish going.

I said "ok ?"

And we were Debating Faulkners commercial skills. Nothing about ethics. Like I said pls put the whole thread up pls

 

Yes, remember I provided the quote for you a short while ago and as I said it wasn't in a thread about Faulkner you are repeating yourself, I'm not going to keep doing. I've asked you to explain your change of stance, you've avoided the question, you can't do it. Nothing else I need to say.

 

And I can't quote a whole thread can I and there really is no need.

You really need to calm down. I'm not even sure why you're questioning ? What have you personally asked ?

Spot on, petty point scoring. Usual suspects I'm afraid . Bit sad a mod is getting off on it too.

Calling it a little sanctimonious and hypocritical for a self-confessed gambler to have a problem with a gambling firm on the shirt is not point scoring. It's merely pointing out something that I thought was more than a little amusing. Now, carry on.

Except he wasn't self confessed..... He was outed for the massive hypocrite he is. The very image of posting for effect and Internet ****-wittery.

Out and out abuse keyboard warrior. I expect this to moderated

How ****ing pathetic. You've been caught out for the pathetic wind up you are. Not very nice being on the receiving end of the mods is it as normally your silly games get others in trouble for calling you out. ****ing deal with it.

Oh and that wasn't point scoring, i meant it, it will be modded as I meant every word but I want you to know how EVERYONE else who isnt a wind up on this site truly feels but are too scared of the mods to say it.

Wow.

No they weren't were they, you described the deal as "ok" and even "decent" no mention of ethics from you, no sign of objection. Your only complaint was it wasn't enough money to keep pace with Spurs.

 

And no we weren't debating purely on Faulkner, the first quote of yours was in the thread about McLeish going.

And we were Debating Faulkners commercial skills. Nothing about ethics. Like I said pls put the whole thread up pls

Spot on, petty point scoring. Usual suspects I'm afraid . Bit sad a mod is getting off on it too.

Calling it a little sanctimonious and hypocritical for a self-confessed gambler to have a problem with a gambling firm on the shirt is not point scoring. It's merely pointing out something that I thought was more than a little amusing. Now, carry on.

Except he wasn't self confessed..... He was outed for the massive hypocrite he is. The very image of posting for effect and Internet ****-wittery.

As I thought . We were debating Faulkner purely on commercial terms.

Ethics were not even on the table for debate and you know that.

Please send a link to that thread so I can read it in full rather than selectively pull out snippets

Please place the link below

He's got a point though. Why was the Genting deal ok but this one is a "stain on the shirt"?

No doubt Trent and BOF are now furrowing through posts from 2011 to try and point score some more ;-)

I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture.

When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising.

 

You said this already 

You seem to object strongly to this deal but seemingly thought the Genting one was "ok", I also would be interested to know your thoughts on the FX Pro deal? I don't recall you objecting to that one either.

 

 

The Macron kit deal and Genting I suppose are ok deals

Nothing spectacular mind you

We are lagging behind spurs who we should perhaps be on a par with

 

Seems odd you were okay with a previous gambling sponsor yet are so against this one.

We weren't debating the ethics of gambling sites at the time and you know it.

You've jumped in to protect BOF. Sad really that you take so much time to trawl through old posts and point score.

Sad really.

I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture.

When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising.

I've admitted I personally gamble. I'm in control of my gambling (which is minuscule really). I care more about others, especially younger people who are becoming more normalised into a gambling culture.

When I was a kid, most people would bet on the grand national once a year and that was it. Today the landscape has changed enormously. Thanks largely to technology and overly aggressive advertising.

I'd have a problem with alcohol ads on the shirt too.

No, you're missing the point. Gambling is different to buying a pair of trainers. I think you know this but you're trying to just fight a losing battle .

Gambling involves chasing losses, more and more. To the point you're in so deep you're **** and your family is ****, you're life is ruined.

Another poster put links to 2 very good articles earlier. Please take the time to read them and educate yourself a bit more.

The stats are real. They are not fabricated guff.

The final paragraph is all just veiled, childish, pathetic patronising abuse.

CI no disrespect but a lot of people find your posts patronising.

And by the way I do see a difference between playing the lottery, betting in the National etc and online gambling straight to your smartphone, and in play seduction.

Totally on another level now.

Care to explain the difference? At least one relies on skill instead of plain luck.

"more than 40 in play markets"

It's creating a culture of gambling on a much unhealthier level. A level where statistics are already bearing out the end results being very sad and very destructive.

To see my team running about with another online gambling site emblazoned across the chest is hugely disappointing and depressing.

Sad times indeed.

The final paragraph is all just veiled, childish, pathetic patronising abuse.

Well, as you can see CI (or maybe you haven't. You've seemed to have deliberately ignored posts that prove your argument wrong), I've responded to Briny's post. Comparing 'confectionary' to gambling is a completely fair and valid point, and it has been made numerous times. You're yet to prove it wrong.

 

I see some people debating and I see others just rubbishing their arguments without developing points of their own. I'm not saying which camp you're in, because I think you can work it out for yourself.

And by the way I do see a difference between playing the lottery, betting in the National etc and online gambling straight to your smartphone, and in play seduction.

Totally on another level now.