[Archived] Moved handbags from the Annual Season Ticket Poll thread

[Dunnfc]

28 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Mischievous to call them 'scoops', more like 'spoofs'.

Funny though how others (not you) want to take the moral high ground and mock the doubters from their lofty perch, when that high ground they are on is actually a very literal pile of crap, based on annual lies, disappointment and two relegations. All 'part and parcel' though - and probably all the fault of the protests/protesters. Nothing at all to do with money (and quality of players) leaving the club, quite the opposite of course.

Fans of Venkys' version of Rovers should be far more humble in their support, and certainly not as vitriolic as some, just because very plausible predictions (and likely genuinely contemplated options) have been temporarily averted.

We are absolutely skint and at some point we are all going to be very upset with proceedings. Venkys will not sell and are not interested in us being successful, unless we fluke promotion this season; at which point they will be happy to take the credit. Then dismantle the team again to cover costs.

A possible promotion season, based on the squad on 1st July, has gone to a few heads. Experience tells us that there will be some sales to cover costs/wages. The triumvirate of Mulgrew, Graham and Lenihan will be where the money is, although Evans, Bennett and Nyambe could well have irons in fires.

Let's hope instead that it's more likely that Stokes goes and is replaced by a League One lad who knows where the goal is. Although even they are probably out of our budget range. Heart strings for Josh Morris? If Stokes and Graham do go then we are well short.

To be fair most of the Blackburn supporters don't have any fight, it's not there nature to address this head on, it's easier to shrug or belittle others efforts as opposed to take action, like the town itself over taken by migration and immigration and not a fight it just happened. 

In other news look at this fromBHS looks like belokon won the court battle but read back a few pages for the finance scan details the oystons pulled, there fans have been right from day one and vindicated.

http://www.backhenrystreet.co.uk/thread-32140-post-542650.html#pid542650

[Sparks Rover]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

The daftest 'scoop' of Suhail's was 'the Riverside will be closed next season' when STs were already on sale!

Must try harder!

He really doesn't have to try that hard to show what a basket case we have become.  The fact that you, parson and chadmeister find some kind of weired joy/satisfaction from rebuffing SS's more outlandish suggestions/predictions, just shows how you have rolled over and let Venky shytes take the piiss right out of you all.  Sad sad attitudes.  Not proper rovers fans.

[Stuart]

24 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

To be fair most of the Blackburn supporters don't have any fight, it's not there nature to address this head on, it's easier to shrug or belittle others efforts as opposed to take action, like the town itself over taken by migration and immigration and not a fight it just happened. 

In other news look at this fromBHS looks like belokon won the court battle but read back a few pages for the finance scan details the oystons pulled, there fans have been right from day one and vindicated.

http://www.backhenrystreet.co.uk/thread-32140-post-542650.html#pid542650

I think there is something in that. Blackburners do seem to just 'get on with it'.

The problem is that they then want to moan about their lot.

Can't have it both ways.

[Dunnfc]

7 minutes ago, Stuart said:

I think there is something in that. Blackburners do seem to just 'get on with it'.

The problem is that they then want to moan about their lot.

Can't have it both ways.

 

12 minutes ago, meadows said:

I'd suggest that's more than mildly racist. 

Blackburn folk are at fault for allowing migrants/immigrants to come to Blackburn "without a fight"? 

And what nature should "a fight" have taken? 

The language of UKIP and the EDL I'd suggest 

Are you for real James?

there is nothing racist whatsoever about my post to suggest otherwise shows how quick to be melodramatic you are, you symbolise what is wrong with society. For the record I'm actually Conservative, some of just have higher standards.

Blackburnians and supporters of this club don't tackle issues well, shy away from confrontation, where a topic is devisive they don't like getting involved, it's a sit on the fence attitude.

exactly the point I was making Stuart.

[Dunnfc]

1 minute ago, meadows said:

Your "higher standards" evidently don't embrace grammar or spelling  

If you can explain how describing Blackburn as a town "overrun by migrants & immigrants without a fight" isn't inflammatory I'm interested to hear it. 

No but my higher standards do extend to actually abide by the license and driving laws of this country.

i also don't seem to have any request from you centering around being able to redistribute my content elsewhere , therefore would you like to ask or kindly remove as your infringing laws again.

 

[blueboy3333]

54 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

To be fair most of the Blackburn supporters don't have any fight, it's not there nature to address this head on, it's easier to shrug or belittle others efforts as opposed to take action, like the town itself over taken by migration and immigration and not a fight it just happened. 

In other news look at this fromBHS looks like belokon won the court battle but read back a few pages for the finance scan details the oystons pulled, there fans have been right from day one and vindicated.

http://www.backhenrystreet.co.uk/thread-32140-post-542650.html#pid542650

Anyone you know @Dunnfc

[Dunnfc]

7 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

 

Whatever floats your boat James

[Stuart]

Think it's about time Meadows was banned from this messageboard. He clearly has an agenda against it.

It's one thing challenging an opinion and calling people out, it's another copying and pasting stuff into Twitter in order to respond, trying to achieve notoriety.

Especially as he gets very upset when people copy and paste his opinion from Twitter on to here.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Dunnfc said:

Whatever floats your boat James

James?

[Stuart]

And that's Blueboyzzz back on ignore. Nothing to offer just stirring the post. Again.

[Mattyblue]

45 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

He really doesn't have to try that hard to show what a basket case we have become.  The fact that you, parson and chadmeister find some kind of weired joy/satisfaction from rebuffing SS's more outlandish suggestions/predictions, just shows how you have rolled over and let Venky shytes take the piiss right out of you all.  Sad sad attitudes.  Not proper rovers fans.

You what? I was just having a bit of craic. Not that I have to justify myself.

Considering I have done pretty much every protest for 7 years, was at Blakey's and more likely than not helping to organise bucket collections and/or trials for a new team at Pleasy when the time comes, you can politely shove our 'not proper Rovers fan' up your arse.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, Stuart said:

Think it's about time Meadows was banned from this messageboard. He clearly has an agenda against it.

It's one thing challenging an opinion and calling people out, it's another copying and pasting stuff into Twitter in order to respond, trying to achieve notoriety.

Especially as he gets very upset when people copy and paste his opinion from Twitter on to here.

This is not the first time Dunn FC has turned a discussion on football into a race issue. Maybe he should be banned too for having an agenda?

[Stuart]

5 minutes ago, meadows said:

If you could perhaps remain gentlemanly and address the perfectly valid initial point I made I'll  engage with you happily but dredging up a £30 "paper" fine I got for not having my licence handy 5 years ago and quoting completely non existent and social media-inapplicable copyright laws you've dreamed up suggests you're maybe trying to steer the argument away from the point. 

A rational individual might have said; "Actually I didn't word that point about immigration very well, perhaps I'll reword or amend it"

Anyway I'm off to the Worsley Cup semi final. Enjoy the rest of your day. 

Nice one. Chuck in an R bomb then clear off wishing everyone well.

A WUM who responds through screenshots and twitter.

Gentlemanly indeed.  

[blueboy3333]

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

And that's Blueboyzzz back on ignore. Nothing to offer just stirring the post. Again.

Says the man who's just called for someone to be banned. You're beyond parody.

[Dunnfc]

2 hours ago, meadows said:

If you could perhaps remain gentlemanly and address the perfectly valid initial point I made I'll  engage with you happily but dredging up a £30 "paper" fine I got for not having my licence handy 5 years ago and quoting completely non existent and social media-inapplicable copyright laws you've dreamed up suggests you're maybe trying to steer the argument away from the point. 

A rational individual might have said; "Actually I didn't word that point about immigration very well, perhaps I'll reword or amend it"

Anyway I'm off to the Worsley Cup semi final. Enjoy the rest of your day. 

I think the irony of your post may well and truly be lost on me. You suggest a form of rational or gentlemanly act of conduct yet beyond even offering anything of the same courtesy your prattling along on twitter posting various posts of mine without so much of my permission, Furthermore your now down playing the severity of breaking U.K. Laws mostly in relation to your ignorance to motoring offences, I fail to see how your even applying any of your own logic here? 

Your argument was rather insufficient your suggestion of racism absurd, I would prefer if you could back up your claims or kindly retract the allegation you've made without any substantiation.

You may wish to review the content liability laws, il give you to 6pm to either approach me in regards to the republishing or il give you the choice to take down. I suggest you kindly ask your wife to advise you accordingly from a legal POV.

Enjoy worsley though.

2 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

This is not the first time Dunn FC has turned a discussion on football into a race issue. Maybe he should be banned too for having an agenda?

I've continually asked you as the only individual who took offence at the time to define what was racial about that post? To date nothing, i wonder why.

I could be wrong but you and Meadows appear to be the same identity. Frequent likes of each ones posts, regular linking to the same blog, spelling and grammar mistakes in the same places. I've asked numerous times what you do etc and you avoid the question but have the teremity to link "incoherent" EDL types to people I may know. Interesting.

Would love to chat but I'm taking the lady to the country club!

[AmericanRover12]

Wait, this is pretty serious stuff you're saying here @Dunnfc. You mean to tell me, and I'm coming from a strictly ignorant place here, that because someone took a screenshot of a post you made on a public forum, posted it to twitter, and added their own commentary to the post, you plan on taking legal action against them? Not to mention the post doesn't have any identifiable names in it anywhere, and someone would have to be a member here to see who posted it, in which case they would know with out the twitter post telling them? Very confused here.

[Dunnfc]

7 minutes ago, AmericanRover12 said:

Wait, this is pretty serious stuff you're saying here @Dunnfc. You mean to tell me, and I'm coming from a strictly ignorant place here, that because someone took a screenshot of a post you made on a public forum, posted it to twitter, and added their own commentary to the post, you plan on taking legal action against them? Not to mention the post doesn't have any identifiable names in it anywhere, and someone would have to be a member here to see who posted it, in which case they would know with out the twitter post telling them? Very confused here.

I'm not actually bothered about the subject of him posting, it's just the sheer lack of class by posting it without saying "Rich do you mind!?" however i was pointing out after he acclaimed "id dreamt the laws up" that it's content liability law which I was just reaffirming above. His lady a solicitor would be best to advise James of the laws generally as he appears not so au fait with.

Internet take down especially with Twitter and DCMA laws of the US is relatively easy as its just one form to sign.

[AmericanRover12]

13 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

I'm not actually bothered about the subject of him posting, it's just the sheer lack of class by posting it without saying "Rich do you mind!?" however i was pointing out after he acclaimed "id dreamt the laws up" that it's content liability law which I was just reaffirming above. His lady a solicitor would be best to advise James of the laws generally as he appears not so au fait with.

Internet take down especially with Twitter and DCMA laws of the US is relatively easy as its just one form to sign.

It's not something you said to him in private. It's not something connected to you other than this board and your username. It's not something he posted a link to, mentioned you in, linked to your twitter profile etc. It wasn't something you posted on your own private website where you hold the rights and liabilities for posting. Again, in all seriousness, other than feeling a need to give permission to essentially repost what you've already said in public, what makes you think you can fill out a DCMA or take down?

[Dunnfc]

14 minutes ago, AmericanRover12 said:

It's not something you said to him in private. It's not something connected to you other than this board and your username. It's not something he posted a link to, mentioned you in, linked to your twitter profile etc. It wasn't something you posted on your own private website where you hold the rights and liabilities for posting. Again, in all seriousness, other than feeling a need to give permission to essentially repost what you've already said in public, what makes you think you can fill out a DCMA or take down?

You'd be surprised at what you can take a DCMA out for, take it down especially if incidents held in another jurastriction which breeches the laws of another country, I own my posts as brfcs holds no liability, your post refers to second sourcing not primary so In theory I should be consulted if one wishes to republish elsewhere away from Brfcs. The US if in doubt will just take it down usually.

id say linking myself to racism which it wasn't was pretty deflamotry, republishing my content under a headline suggesting racism isn't just a case of simply reproducing second information either.

As I've stated I was informing James misinformed mind that there are laws which centre around reposting people's posts which judging by your post you appear in agreement with. Good to know I wasn't "dreaming" of those

[AmericanRover12]

9 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

You'd be surprised at what you can take a DCMA out for, take it down especially if incidents held in another jurastriction which breeches the laws of another country, I own my posts as brfcs holds no liability, your post refers to second sourcing not primary so In theory I should be consulted if one wishes to republish elsewhere away from Brfcs. The US if in doubt will just take it down usually.

id say linking myself to racism which it wasn't was pretty deflamotry, republishing my content under a headline suggesting racism isn't just a case of simply reproducing second information either.

As I've stated I was informing James misinformed mind that there are laws which centre around reposting people's posts which judging by your post you appear in agreement with. Good to know I wasn't "dreaming" of those

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here, but I would argue that posting a screenshot and adding commentary to it falls under the US's "Fair use" exception for copyright. He didn't misrepresent your words, they're posted unedited. Knowing this I dont see how you could, in "good faith," be willing to sign an agreement to put under oath that he has misused your copyright.

[Dunnfc]

1 minute ago, AmericanRover12 said:

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here, but I would argue that posting a screenshot and adding commentary to it falls under the US's "Fair use" exception for copyright. He didn't misrepresent your words, they're posted unedited. Knowing this I dont see how you could, in "good faith," be willing to sign an agreement to put under oath that he has misused your copyright.

Correct to a slight extent but if it'd have been just the screenshot with no commentary that would be fair use, it's the reproduction in another jurastricion as such and remains additional which instigates appropriate use and the source I.e primary and secondary as you'll no doubt be aware of what you can can't and cite with the differences of those two. 

Leave you in peace 

[Tony Diamond Inc]

4 hours ago, Dunnfc said:

To be fair most of the Blackburn supporters don't have any fight, it's not there nature to address this head on, it's easier to shrug or belittle others efforts as opposed to take action, like the town itself over taken by migration and immigration and not a fight it just happened. 

In other news look at this fromBHS looks like belokon won the court battle but read back a few pages for the finance scan details the oystons pulled, there fans have been right from day one and vindicated.

http://www.backhenrystreet.co.uk/thread-32140-post-542650.html#pid542650

The town overtaken without a fight?

What kind of fight do you suggest Dunnfc, and more pertinently, why?

[AmericanRover12]

23 minutes ago, Dunnfc said:

Correct to a slight extent but if it'd have been just the screenshot with no commentary that would be fair use....

This is where we disagree, there's been many cases which reinforce the exact opposite of this notion, again in the US. Although at this point, I suspect that you know all this and are fighting it for reasons known only to you.

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, AmericanRover12 said:

It's not something you said to him in private. It's not something connected to you other than this board and your username. It's not something he posted a link to, mentioned you in, linked to your twitter profile etc. It wasn't something you posted on your own private website where you hold the rights and liabilities for posting. Again, in all seriousness, other than feeling a need to give permission to essentially repost what you've already said in public, what makes you think you can fill out a DCMA or take down?

I'm confused here.

BRFCS is a member site, albeit posts will show up on a Google search. Posts made on here, however, are with the intent of sharing with the BRFCS community.

A screenshot of such a post, from said community, is posted on Twitter for the gratification of a Twit's (not sure the correct phrase for a twitter user) followership - uncontrolled by, and unconnected to, the original poster - ignoring BRFCS (disclaimer) site rule that content is copywriter of the poster.

And you are ok with this?

Close the site, we may as well all just use Twitter.

[AmericanRover12]

12 minutes ago, Stuart said:

BRFCS is a member site, albeit posts will show up on a Google search. Posts made on here, however, are with the intent of sharing with the BRFCS community.

Correct on being a member site, that anyone can sign up for and use. And posts are made to be posted and shared here, but often are posted elsewhere, even by BRFCS itself. https://twitter.com/brfcsdotcom

12 minutes ago, Stuart said:

A screenshot of such a post, from said community, is posted on Twitter for the gratification of a Twit's (not sure the correct phrase for a twitter user) followership - uncontrolled by, and unconnected to, the original poster - ignoring BRFCS (disclaimer) site rule that content is copywriter of the poster.

Your speculation on why the screenshot is posted is noted, and will go without comment from me. The poster was not targeted, as username was left out. The post was not edited in such a way that message or words were misconstrued / manipulated, and was commented on as any other article, post, tweet, blog, or media would be by the Twitter user commenting on a post. Is your issue with the screenshot itself? Would you have preferred a link to the post directly? (something you are able to do as well.)

12 minutes ago, Stuart said:

And you are ok with this?

Based on everything outlined above, yes.

12 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Close the site, we may as well all just use Twitter.

If you think managing topics and discussions in that format is easier, then by all means go ahead. I find forums to be much more effective at containing different dialogues from many users.