ED - Please ban the usage of
You can add "dofdoos" to the list of banned words.
But please retain slimebag - it is a true description of two of our members - one from England and the other from the USA.
Only problem, your good mate Ceradyne's a long term resident there & he'll probably beat you to the button .
I consider myself to be a neutral poster and I am sure most would agree, and it is my humble opinion that you are as guilty as those you are accusing of being...unsavory! Why should the rest of us be treated like school children as a result?
There is no need to ban anybody. Just tone back the personal attacks and we'll all get along just fine.
I tried to get Mozart to agree to discuss issues on a civil basis - but he refused and that is the reason for this request.
Denny
I am perfectly happy if "faggot" and "scumbag" is added to the list of words not to be sued on the site as well.
I am no chommy of Clean Cut, we have too often in the past differed on some players and we still do - so that is not the case. I have never met the guy - unlike you whom I respect as a person and never, ever degraded myself by calling you all kind of insulting words.
I can ignore Mozart's posts as you suggested - but eh does not ignore mine and it would be an uneven contest in that case.
This was your response....it's clear that you do not want to ignore him..."The real issue is that the slimebag thinks he is superior to other members, is egocentric and in the process a real liar to boot. Bad news that one - but if he thinks he can lie and carry on like he normally does - I will respond to his deranged postings in kind.
Which part don't you understand?
I understand Mozart perfectly. The story about ignoring my postings by him was stated previously by him. In the first posting thereafter about fantasy rugby - an issue he has had no interest whatsoever - he made a posting, showing his seriousness about ignoring postings by me. He does not keep to his undertakings in that regard - that is all I am saying.
I was ignoring his postings for a few days - but he kept on attacking me personally. I would say that it is not that I do not understand his so-called undertaking, what I do know he does not keep to his undertakings and a promise by him is a waste of site space. He is a totally unreliable person who disregard his own undertakings as soon as he fancies to do so. He thrives on controversy and is the real cause of constant personal problems on this site.
If you go along with whatsoever he says - he will leave you alone insofar as personal attacks are concerned - if you differ from him you are targetted by him. So you are safe in the relevant regard.
No bans or restrictions needed
M aybe just a thicker skin....... for some
Or be prepared to take on the chin, that what you are prepared to dish out.
However, we have to keep up with two of the lowest creatures imaginable as site members and that is a fact as well.
Mike
Not sure that I agree, Ceradyne seems to always back up his views. You and I may differ with those views but he is not emotionally linked to his argument which keeps him rational. In contrast you are so wound up by the older players that Matfield features in a huge proportion of your posts. I am not in favour of big brother control, posters should take responsibility for their words and not post anything that would not be prepared to repeat to a 6 year old child.
Then again, very recently, I mentioned the facts about a player's tackling stats. Note, facts as was reported in the media. Your response was to accuse me of polluting the thread.
Beeno told you he posted the article on this site and that my interpretation was correct. He definitely posted the article and you deliberately did not want to find it - that is nearer the truth. You are the so-called expert in finding threads on this site - but in this case you were BSting.
You are the most one-sided person on this site. You quoted the fact that Goosen missed two o ut of three attempted tackles - which was obvious from the stats I post. I did not comment on it because it was insignificant since he was very good iro the rest of his performances. That is much different from what happened in the Perth test where Morne missed 46% of his tackle attempts - but the rest of his game was even worse and he lost the game for the Boks by rank incompetence. What is worse - missing tackles or missing tackles and add to that a disastrous overall performance as well?
Look I normally look at a series and not at one game. Morne was poor against Wales and was so poor that Meyer in fact dropped him from the starting line-up. He was on the bench against Argentina in two games - made one good pass and then made a determined effort to prevent SA from winning. Meyer brought him back into the starting line-up and was so poor that he never got another call-up since then. In his case 5 matches of seriously defective performance is not a one - game perspective.
In the case of Goosen you said he is not a flyhalf - yet in the first game afterwards he played at flyhalf for RM - so the posting was merely a response to your previous posting.
It is not a case of sies man on my part - the sies man should be directed at the lowlife members who thrive on insults - and look at yourself as well.
Are you really in favour of the personal attacks and nastiness on this site?
Mattfield & Bath thread
This will not resolve anything. We are definitely in a low rugby news period & the usual cannibalism is evident.
1. Le Clos 50.25 in the 100m b/fly - the time "based on fact" was actually 51.04. Called Mozart a liar for questioning the time, asserted he (Mike) never lies, defended it until overwhelming evidence proved him wrong, then didn't even have the guts or decency to apologize for his error/lie in the thread.
2. Asserted that De Allende missed tackles against Aus because he had to get up and make second tackles (didn't apply to a single missed tackle, as anyone reviewing the video evidence could see), or because he was attempting tackles few others would have (didn't apply to a single missed tackle, as anyone reviewing the video evidence could see) - no basis in fact, yet defended it to the death despite factual evidence to the contrary being presented, without ever admitting he was wrong in any of those two instances.
The list is a lot longer I'm sure. This is just to demonstrate from which source this criticism about "no arguments based on fact" is coming from.
If we have opinions we will get arguments. If we express our opinions a lot we will make mistakes. If we feel strongly enough about something we will pi&ss some people off & they will retaliate. Nothing is new about this so big deal. Just let it go & talk about the next rugby topic. That's my advice anyway.
Matfield set to play after RWC?
Those thinking Springbok lock Victor Matfield will retire for the second time may well be disappointed – it seems the legendary Bok lock is set for another swansong at English club Bath.
The 38-year old World Cup winning lock should actually retire from playing after the Rugby World Cup and is contracted to take up a coaching position with the Vodacom Bulls next season, but it seems this may not be the case as he seeks a final payday before turning to coaching.
There have been rumours that since the axing of Frans Ludeke as Bulls coach – the Super Rugby franchise has not found a replacement – that Matfield may not be keen to go into coaching just yet, especially as Ludeke’s proposal to move to Director of coaching with Matfield and Fourie du Preez taking over the coaching reigns, was rejected with the Bulls bad run of results earlier this year.
According to sources close to the Bulls, Matfield was also told that the Bulls would not stand in his way if he decided he didn’t want to take up the coaching contract after the World Cup.
With this in mind, the news that Bath may want to sign him on a short term deal – a season in England to cap off a long and illustrious career – may well suit the Bok captain very well, especially with the pound very strong against the rand at the moment.
Matfield is currently nursing a hamstring injury and is not in action for the Boks this weekend in their Castle Lager Rugby Championship game against Argentina, but is expected to be a big part of coach Heyneke Meyer’s plans in the upcoming Rugby World Cup.
His move to Bulls assistant coach after the 2011 Rugby World Cup was mixed, as he took over the Bulls attack in Super Rugby and was not always a popular figure among the younger players.
When Meyer took over the Bok coaching job in 2012, he asked Matfield to begin playing again, which the big lock did in 2013, and was used extensively as player-coach by the Bulls over the last two seasons. Matfield also led the Boks into their Rugby Championship test against Australia in Brisbane last month, where he was injured. Matfield has played 12 tests since returning from his initial retirement.
The Bok lock has played overseas before, an ill-fated stint at Toulon in the Pro2 division in France after the 2007 Rugby World Cup before returning home after a year and leading the Bulls to their Vodacom Super Rugby titles in 2009 and 2010.
Asked about the impending move, Matfield’s agent Gerrie Swart said there was no truth in the speculation.
Now wouldn't it be nice if ou Tokkie would have been able to point out to us exactly where in the article he found any mention of (as he put it):
"It is clear that Matfield was a flop as attack coach of the Bulls and it also answered the question why some of especially the younger players did not show anything in the past three years in general and Super 15 this year in particular.
It is also clear that the myth of Matfield's influence in the changeroom could also be a negative on team performance. Nobody wants to be instructed to use out-dated methods and bossed around by a reputation ex-player."
That was the article Beeno posted on this site and you did not find the item on Supersport - liar. If you did - where did you find my original comments as highlighted above. It was written on the thread you "could not find"
So how right was I? The last time the Bulls beat the Stormers in CC was in 2012. With Ludeke and Matfield out of the way - the team suddenly started functioning this year and they are on top of the CC Log with 15 points after three games and a point difference in excess of 80. That is a vast difference from what happened with the Bulls over the past three years.
So my comments were 100% correct - Matfield with the active assistance of Ludeke (or was it the other way around) buggered up the team comprehensively. And the following from the article is pertinent:-
"His move to Bulls assistant coach after the 2011 Rugby World Cup was mixed, as he took over the Bulls attack in Super Rugby and was not always a popular figure among the younger players"
SO WHY ARE YOU NOT RUNNING AWAY AFTER BEING FOUND OUT SO COMPREHENSIVELY AND ALSO FOUND TO BE LYING AGAIN.
"That was the article Beeno posted on this site and you did not find the item on Supersport - liar."
I have now manage to find the original article on Supersport as well. Now, since JW posted the link to the thread on Ruckersforum. I have told you ages ago that your English reading comprehension is stuffed. Read what I have said very slowly and then spend a few minutes to think about the meaning thereof. This was what I said: "To be on the safe side, I did a search and has now found............".
Got that, numbnut?
You are dancing around the issue, p@epol. Where in the article is there any reference to (a) the myth of Matfield's influence in the changeroom could also be a negative on team performance and (b) "His move to Bulls assistant coach after the 2011 Rugby World Cup was mixed, as he took over the Bulls attack in Super Rugby and was not always a popular figure among the younger players"
Before you start on the Bulls performance and nailing it all on Matfield's tenure as asst coach, bear in mind that during his time as asst coach they also managed to win the SA Conference of the Super 15, reaching the semi-finals.
One dud on kamp ss said his life had changed when he put me on ignore. However it didnt last. Some of the girls were masochistic. Bwahahhahahaha
No we dont need all that rubbish here. Ideally folks should not get too nasty. Calling a guy a perv doesnt cut it but calling ou cerundunce windpomp a doff doos doesnt seem so inappropriate. Hahahahahahahahaha
Ou maaaikie Dr Mozzz is missing having his old board room battles and likes as a substitute to wind you up. Dont take things too seriously.
As to replying steadfastly to ou windpomp many jibes - well you need bags of energy and time on your hands. I find correcting the kkbs just right as JW, for example, for all his many, many, many faults keeps it brief.
Cerudunce windpomp keep searching for the post outlining matfiled's malignant effect on the bulle's dressing room. It also said everything said in the dressing room was reported to the coach. Try finding the correct article windpomp.
Ou windpomp naturally will support wee matfiled given his Bulle bias and rugby ignorance. Wake up windpomp and try and not get too long winded !
Hahahaha.....brilliant Blob. This does kinda capture Hasbeen-ou....mad as a hatter.
And this captivates the Perv...
Glad to know I'm not the only one believing he has a condition.
I would rather have mad than bad mumbled the fair-minded kiwi
Mozart - you are the worst thing ever on this site.
Oh jolly good, a new one for your wall then....Perv
I only use pics of sportsmen when they put in top class performance as avatars.
I see dense denise is falling back to his bad old ways. Noted. dense when you get a little bit objective you may become more interesting! apply lonely braincell to the solution! Bwahahhahahahahaha
Beeno as sane as they come.


