You have finally begun to make sense to me and this just came to mind. No need to thank me. I'm sure it'll provide many hours of fun for you. Where your creativity and dare I say, looseness with the truth, can be better appreciated.
https://www.fanfiction.net
BS
Lol Mike
Another one snapping at your heels.
This one has rather quickly sided against ya. Almost unnaturally so ;)
He sided against me actually. He made several accusations, lied about me and spew out many insults (dud, useless, worthless, doff, idiot, minion). I have done none of these things. So, you are absolutely wrong.
Alucard don't be to hard on oom ou maaaki e.
Thanks
"Leeeeeeeave Mikey alonnnnnnnnne!!!"
Ta.
BS
It's kind of funny, I asked him some rugby questions and he flat out told me these are stupid things to ask and irrelevant. So basically, I either believe whatever he says for no reason whatsoever or I am a useless, worthless dud. Asking questions are forbidden, it's like a cult. Then plum insinuates that I have evily turned on Clever Mike. Ridiculous. This guy is hyper aggressive if he doesn't get his own way.
BS - the biggest deceiver and liar on site are you
@ Moz
Certainly wasn't thinking it was you. One struggles to see how you'd ever need a fake ID to make your point.
We can however expect Rooi back at some stage. Kinda miss the guy actually. Strangely I never had any sti ck from him.
Lurker, Mike's opinions are often wrong, like most of us, but he does keep the site very well informed and is always up for answering questions and sharing whatever info he has about teams and players.
As time passes you'll see the value in that...one hopes
Well said Plum....but Lurker knows Mike all too well and he might even bring Rooi back from retirement
Lurker is unquestionably Alucard, aka, Gonzo, Bozo the Clown, Dim Sun and Desert Fox.
Lurker is clearly Alucard. Well done Slobolobsky! Not that ou JW is any the wiser, failed mole hunter for sure!!!!!!!!!!
There have been others with identity crisises...Jalapeno, Lord Kitchener, Rooinek : Stormed, Beeno: and many unidentified...Devils Avocate, I suspect has several identities...avatars change with some...Ol' Maaiks one ( some bozo sitting on the "throne") meant to take the mickey out of Saffex sitting on a 6 foot drop picture) was funny...Beeno had a faze with crocodiles...very odd Dr Win...maybe it had something to do with PW Botha (Die Groot Krokodil).
Draad had one with Horner Simpson wanting more beer, Dave (Saffex) presented himself as he really was until the peanut gallery started calling him Fattex, Mozart posted a picture of old Mike which was seen from the wrong angle in more ways than one...Plum had his actual changed his due to rude remarks to just the colour of a plum which Wardad said was a vast improvement but Blowbob has kept his so we know what he looks like in the flesh and then Rooiaas posted a picture of Mozart and Denny which was a private site and was frowned upon. Clean Cut was the Saint Emblem and before that the gangster Al Capone.
This board really can really at times have a peculiar sense of humour and we all have had our laughs...somehow in the last couple of months it's gone stone dead...Mozart/Mike's feuds are real killers as once there was a sense of light humour to them but now it's tedious, boring and sometimes downright tasteless and nasty.
I hope this start to pick up again...missing are... Sansuke San, Boklogic, becs,Pooie, Biltong Bek, and many others including Rooiaas and Saffex.
Plum you trust your judgement too much. First it was me going after Clever Mike, but you were wrong. Then it was Clever Mike always answering questions and being up for any debate. You were wrong again. Must I cut and paste his response to me? So you don't know Clever Mike well at all but you somehow know everything about me?? Sure. So what's your angle? It sounds like your adding weight to Clever Mike who has an agenda to shut up anyone who says anything different even if that person gives him a good opportunity to explain his position! As I've said before it doesn't interest me what people think my "real" name is. I pretty much started posting because I could add to rugby discussions and so many where complaining of boredom. It's stuff like this that chases people away from a forum. You guys are like a ye olde galleon crew that's been lost at see too long and now become paranoid at the hands of cabin fever.
Hey Lurker, please stop this talk of people being chased away. You are right, you can ad to rugby...and probably about the cabin fever, but hey, its our cabin and you've been welcomed, that makes it your cabin too !
Seb
However, the problem is that all of Rooinek, Saffex and Biltongbek were driven off site by Mozart with his personal attacks on them. Really they should be more thick-skinned but Mozart managed to do just that. He tried the same stunt on me - and really got low life attributes in that regard - but he did not succeed.
Alucard, Gonzo the Great, had at least 6 other use names before the latest. His method has always been the same and any member writing about anything negative said about the players and coaches he and Mozart adore get shouted down and denigrated. He wrote long precis about game plans, etc. Anyhow in the case of Meyer he came up with Meyer's game plan and what was laughable as what he said about the game plan never happened on the field of play - it was all theory dreamt up to make Meyer look good. When I queried the Meyer game plan of the 2015 WC and pointed out the fact that it was a duplicate of the game plan devised by Meyer for the Bulls in 2004 - he denied it and claimed that Burger is a good distributor of balls as if he is a better one than Pollard. As a result the backline was cut out completely from any handing of the ball in a proper backline format. So who was to blame for that deficiency? According to Lurker De Allende and Kriel. He did not mention that De Allende in the semi beat more defenders than any other player on both side and caused more possession turnovers in the game than Louw - who he claimed prevented the AB's beating the Springboks by a big margin - all of it BS because Louw's work rate for the rest was low and nothing worth noting.
Mozart and Lurker aka Gonzo the Geat, Alucard and whatever other string of user names he had - rarely start any threads and when they did it would target especially P-S du Toit and De Allende - or rarely threats aimed at personal attacks on other members .Both have the same tendency in dreaming up misrepresentations to denigrate the players they dislike like I mentioned before. When they cannot respond to members who differ from them - they turn the topic under discussion to another issue or make personal attacks on the member concerned.
I would rate them as really poor posters ,more interested in denigrating others than being accepted as good rugby posters.. Under the circumstances I am not going to respond to their BS in future.
. .
Double post, sorry.
Clever Mike you're one of the most dishonest people I have ever seen. I haven't attacked ANY player. You called Fransie a fat slob. You call people worthless, useless, stupid, doff, other profanities. Over the past few months I've seen you start thread after thread calling people out for being stupid. It took you one day to begin with me! And you have the cheek to accuse anyone else of chasing members away!! I ask you a few questions and you tell me those are worthless questions and irrelevant. Questions about set plays, tackles and alignments, patterns and events for each phase. Hell Clever Mike, if we can't ask these questions then what in god's name can we talk about? I post about these things and you call it make believe jargon. Literally. You are an impediment to any rugby discussion. You become very personal with even perceived disagreement. That's odd, because I haven't seen anyone do anything like this to you. Maybe if you lied a lot less you'd have less trouble with people! You didn't just do it with me, but Paki too.
@Draad - That's good of you to say. Thanks
BS
BS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE
This video is Mike in a nutshell lately. "I've come here for an argument"
I really enjoy a joke and the banter and just sometimes there are insightful comments on the ACTUAL subject of rugby and other issues but when things get too nasty, I'm not too sensitive, but this becomes no pleasure and there are a thousand and one things to do that are more stimulating than reading on going rants about players...we all have different views and are entitled to them...it just gets irritating hearing the same old thing so many times over and over again.
One man's meat is another ones poison and to try and enforce a point of view is probably the most futile approach to debate...you lose both the argument and the sale. Rather respect or a least try to the others point of view and move on.
Lol Lurker
Easy there tiger.
Don't know dick all about you. Never claimed too.
Just saying it's odd how quickly you took a dislike to Mike. Fastest I've seen.
If one wanted to support Mike, who cares? He's never insulted me despite us disagreeing more often than not.
Or you can fall into the trap of anyone who agrees with your enemy is by default your enemy. Which I'm sure you know is a nonsense of a mode.
Save your anger for Trad, he's the only true asshole here.
plum
I often differ from most members and there are no problem in that regard bar with Mozart and his company. I tried repeatedly to improve relations with Mozart - but after 14 days at most he started with his personal insults and that is the end of that effort.
When anybody differ from them and point out their silly rubbish they often enough post - they go ballistic. Rather than accept that they may be wrong in what they write on site - they duck and dive like it is unbelievable and come up with efforts to sidetrack the issue or start with personal insults.
That is why I have only one very precise comment on what they normally write on site - easy to understand "BS"
I asked you several rugby questions, you ducked and dived and ignored those questions and insulted me.
You got irritated by my post about the Boks coaches and laid down the laws of how rugby can and cannot be played. I posted two incidents that contradicted your iron clad laws. You ducked and dived and ignored the topic. You then proceeded to insult me and then lie about what I said, drawing attention away from the actual topic.
You have actually insulted me a number of times. I have done no such thing to you though. But here you are painting this picture of you as the wounded Messiah and we are collective Barabus types. You've got some real issues if you actually believe these things. As I said above, I haven't seen anyone else but you start a thread calling out individuals as being stupid. This is what you don't get, you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of doing. Down to the tiniest detail.
I have no issue with you disagreeing with me. But I took offence to you telling a load of nonsense to everyone about me. Lying is going to make me an adversary.
Lurker, you live in the UK right?
An expat Saffa?
Not hassling you. Just enjoy a bit of linguistic detective work :)
Mike
You and Moz are Yin and Yang.
I've come to believe that it's the two of you what holds the universe in balance.
Anyway you're both nice guys that I'm glad I met on here.
Listen Lurker
One last response to you - you were caught writing rubbish on site and when it was pointed out to you asked for examples and two cases were mentioned by me. Stats were included for one of those to cases. That means that you were caught out properly and you would not admit as much,
To sidetrack the issue you start asking non-related questions about general play, You should have realized that Hansen answered your questions already by benching Nonu early. Do you know more about rugby than Hansen?
You proved nothing. I had no issue to avoid because you wouldn't answer any questions. You haven't gotten the proof part. Never have you gotten one over. Your statistics told you very little actually, so I had to ask rugby questions to get to the bottom of the issue but you didn't have any answers. So you got nasty, again. You've been wrong on every rugby issue thus far.
I didn't ask about general play. I asked about each of the tackles and runs made by both player. Which phases did they occur, what were their roles? Who was the primary and support tackles? What was the goal of each carry? What set plays were used. What defensive systems were used?
You could only come up with this:
1.New Zealand used a standard defence all game
2.South Africa attacked from all angles
3.No ball was given to loosies so it wasn't a defensive game.
That is embarrassing. It's pretty tame. You had no answers. Just a page of numbers you don't know how to use.
Listen dumbness what has those so-called questions to do with the fact that Hansen replaced Nonu early because he was wiped the floor with by De Allende. If you cannot read stats and understand same - I cannot help you. The whole question BS was used to try to wiggle out of a misrepresentation you posted on site so as to wiggle out of the hole you landed yourself in. .
By the way there was one question I asked you about the game in question and that was when did De Allende miss a tackle that lead to a AB try? Did you squirm out of that one because I warned you not to use the lie your idiot master has been punting on this side for years?
Ceradunce
BS
Nonu was pulled because of Damian is your opinion. Statistics "telling" you that these are facts is your interpretation of numbers, not facts. The questions force you to show that you can interpret the game, not a page full of numbers. The numbers don't tell very much, answers to my questions reveal everything. You can't answer the questions because you cannot interpret the game. Or at least, I don't think so. If you can then that means you are intentionally deceiving people. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I squirmed out of nothing.
No answer to my question BSter so many times asked? So you know more about interpretation of the game than Hansen does.
We will find out soon because I'm going to look at the game again.
Anyway your both nice guys that I'm glad I met on here.
I've met both, enjoyed their company and had a jolly good time. They are good blokes. Back in the day they got on well so I'm not sure where it all went south.
I must say though that the one is a pain in the ass and the other is even a bigger pain in the ass...
