Thread removed and its reference removed

[The Bristol Nest 517]

Glad he is not banned.

I liked William Telly.

Telly Savalas next Saturday?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, YellowYawner said:

Does it matter? I think it’s clear with this ifollow business that things have changed somewhat now and the moderators of the forum don’t want these threads here.

ive used Bills links before, he’s posted them for a couple of years now at least and they’ve been helpful. My only concern, as mentioned in the second thread was that some people might be finding them on here and not realising those streams can sometimes be harmful. 

Maybe Bill could start a thread about a nice walk he took down by the river, bump it every now and then and people can PM him to ask him privately where he went. Just an idea. Would be a lot of work on his part though

But only since it was reported to the moderators. They haven't give a monkeys for ten years.

So quite rightly, Bill is asking if there is an ulterior motive.

He will not be posting links anymore. But we all know what those links are.

But the hypocrisy from some is laughable.

And I really am surprised that so many see it as robbing the club. Don't they think the club is robbing them at times?

Have a bad meal and you ask for a replacement or your money back. Bad movie and you walk out. Keep your receipts for purchases and remember your warranty if something breaks

Club spent beggar all last season just to bank money. Fair enough but you still have to provide a decent product for £30 a time. they treated supporters badly by doing so but no-one asked for a refund. 

Because they know it doesn't work that way. Supporting the club isn't a choice its a lifestyle. And they know that many will never believe the club would do something wrong.

But don't walk away with the idea that we are the ones doing the robbing every time we watch a stream on the internet.

 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, The Bristol Nest said:

Glad he is not banned.

I liked William Telly.

Telly Savalas next Saturday?

 

What about a Lynx advert?

[Flying Dutchman 744]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

The previous 5 pages have demonstrated why this OP was started ie to question why the second thread was taken down.

Once the original post was removed I did not re-post the link, I merely pointed out my reasons.

There was nothing contentious in that thread, nothing abusive only pointing out that removing the first post had more to do with me than any moral outrage. As this posting of a link had been going on for months. However this particular link followed a spat with a poster who consistently follows me around, making personal comments.

Argue all you wish about the ethics, but don't forget what the OP questioned. Why was the second thread taken down so quick when it contained nothing that this thread has not ?

cherchez le ferme, as the French would have it

I reported the thread for be a posting of an illegal link. I'm not hiding. 

There was also nothing personal about it. I barely pay attention to you. The indication that it was personal is entirely arrogant on your part. It wasn't, and it isn't all about you believe it or not.

I pretty much post as often as I am online. This used to be a lot, but recently it isn't that much really, my life and family keep me much more busy now. I normally only check a few threads (at the top) at a time these days.

Probably explains why last night was the first time I've really paid attention to it, because apparently that needs justifying to you.

The reasons have mostly been addressed by various people above, I'm not going to rehash the same things.

I have never used an illegal link, seriously. And I have previously paid to watch my team play in the games i don't get free access to.

If I couldn't afford it or didn't believe it represented value for money, I simply wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't steal anything else if I couldn't afford it or thought it was too expensive for what I was getting.

Lose your unjust sense of entitlement maybe.

You can post all the imagined justifications you want, you can play the victim, you can make it all about people attacking you if you like. I couldn't care less who you are and I most certainly don't follow you around. Like I said, if anything I don't actually pay attention to you.

Bottom line is you posted an illegal link. It got removed and rightly so. Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names for thinking that illegal links SHOULD be taken down, was also taken down.

You have no moral high ground here. You are disgusting.

Get over it.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Flying Dutchman

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 minutes ago, Flying Dutchman said:

I reported the thread for be a posting of an illegal link. I'm not hiding. 

There was also nothing personal about it. I barely pay attention to you. The indication that it was personal is entirely arrogant on your part. It wasn't, and it isn't all about you believe it or not.

I pretty much post as often as I am online. This used to be a lot, but recently it isn't that much really, my life and family keep me much more busy now. I normally only check a few threads (at the top) at a time these days.

Probably explains why last night was the first time I've really paid attention to it, because apparently that needs justifying to you.

The reasons have mostly been addressed by various people above, I'm not going to rehash the same things.

I have never used an illegal link, seriously. And I have previously paid to watch my team play in the games i don't get free access to.

If I couldn't afford it or didn't believe it represented value for money, I simply wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't steal anything else if I couldn't afford it or thought it was too expensive. Lose your unjust sense of entitlement maybe.

Bottom line is you posted an illegal link. It got removed and rightly so. Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names for thinking that illegal links SHOULD be taken down, was also taken down.

You have no moral high ground here. You are disgusting.

Get over it.

You are way out of line.

[Greavsy 2,419]

 🍿 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

10 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

 🍿 

🍿 + 🌭 

[NFN FC 1,123]

It's just a link posted on a forum. We have freedom of choice to pick if we want to do something illegal. Taking it down won't change a thing (apart from causing a right kerfuffle). 

Calling each other names is not the way though now, is it? 

[Bill 1,788]

38 minutes ago, Flying Dutchman said:

I reported the thread for be a posting of an illegal link. I'm not hiding. 

There was also nothing personal about it. I barely pay attention to you. The indication that it was personal is entirely arrogant on your part. It wasn't, and it isn't all about you believe it or not.

I pretty much post as often as I am online. This used to be a lot, but recently it isn't that much really, my life and family keep me much more busy now. I normally only check a few threads (at the top) at a time these days.

Probably explains why last night was the first time I've really paid attention to it, because apparently that needs justifying to you.

The reasons have mostly been addressed by various people above, I'm not going to rehash the same things.

I have never used an illegal link, seriously. And I have previously paid to watch my team play in the games i don't get free access to.

If I couldn't afford it or didn't believe it represented value for money, I simply wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't steal anything else if I couldn't afford it or thought it was too expensive for what I was getting.

Lose your unjust sense of entitlement maybe.

You can post all the imagined justifications you want, you can play the victim, you can make it all about people attacking you if you like. I couldn't care less who you are and I most certainly don't follow you around. Like I said, if anything I don't actually pay attention to you.

Bottom line is you posted an illegal link. It got removed and rightly so. Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names for thinking that illegal links SHOULD be taken down, was also taken down.

You have no moral high ground here. You are disgusting.

Get over it.

" I barely pay attention to you."........"You are disgusting."

Well. you certainly don't pay attention to what is written, though you did post an angry, Tunbridge Wells type whine so I doubt if you were the one who reported the second thread. So the question remains why was that thread taken down.?

Because that is what this thread is about, and not one of you (whoever you particularly are) have been able to explain.

The person I have been informed by two people is responsible is not your login. As to paying particular attention you have been one of the odious group who have joined in whenever the usual suspect has had a hissy fit towards me.

As to it being all about me, then yes it probably is all about me.... the post I put up, and the second by someone else.

[Greavsy 2,419]

I guess is akin to flashing other drivers when there is a mobile speed trap nearby. 

[Bill 1,788]

"Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names"

which does rather suggest you do take particular notice of me. to login, as to click on that particular thread and somehow construe my comments as me calling people names, I didn't

as if I did, would not it have been far better to have left the comments there for all to see and judge

or had I hit the nail a bit to close to home ?

and my thought is like a Shakespearian play this is all Much Ado About Nothing

a clip from Shakespeare for FD

 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

1 hour ago, Flying Dutchman said:

I reported the thread for be a posting of an illegal link. I'm not hiding. 

There was also nothing personal about it. I barely pay attention to you. The indication that it was personal is entirely arrogant on your part. It wasn't, and it isn't all about you believe it or not.

I pretty much post as often as I am online. This used to be a lot, but recently it isn't that much really, my life and family keep me much more busy now. I normally only check a few threads (at the top) at a time these days.

Probably explains why last night was the first time I've really paid attention to it, because apparently that needs justifying to you.

The reasons have mostly been addressed by various people above, I'm not going to rehash the same things.

I have never used an illegal link, seriously. And I have previously paid to watch my team play in the games i don't get free access to.

If I couldn't afford it or didn't believe it represented value for money, I simply wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't steal anything else if I couldn't afford it or thought it was too expensive for what I was getting.

Lose your unjust sense of entitlement maybe.

You can post all the imagined justifications you want, you can play the victim, you can make it all about people attacking you if you like. I couldn't care less who you are and I most certainly don't follow you around. Like I said, if anything I don't actually pay attention to you.

Bottom line is you posted an illegal link. It got removed and rightly so. Your so called 'apology' which was basically a way to call people names for thinking that illegal links SHOULD be taken down, was also taken down.

You have no moral high ground here. You are disgusting.

Get over it.

You say it’s nothing personal, FD, but then go on to make the point that you barely pay any attention to Bill, or rather his posts. Which, with respect, sounds like you’ve obviously made a very conscientious decision to do this, and certainly suggests you have paid attention and you’ve already decided you don’t like what he posts, thus your reason to ignore or both notice’ them. Otherwise, how could you not notice posts from a prominent and prolific poster on here? - unavoidable when you’re checking in most days, even for a few minutes.

As for the the debate over whether watching streams is morally right or not, the way I see it is that Bill’s just tried to help out people on here. Irrespective of the legalities or morale aspect, the act in itself has no benefit to Bill (the opposite if anything) and just suggests he’s thinking of others on here, which in itself is certainly not a bad quality. If I’m honest, thoughtfulness is always a far more pleasant quality than being a snitch - legally or not. Personally, I don’t think that makes Bill a disgusting person at all.

[hogesar 9,720]

6 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

No its not, and even if it was there is zero chance of being charged. The worst that would happen is your Internet provider will block the links, and even then there's ways round it. 

Yes, it really is illegal. Literally one Google search will give you all the answers you need from such regulator's as FACT.

Chance of being charged is a different matter but do not spread misinformation about something being legal when its not. Its a criminal offence. 

[hogesar 9,720]

37 minutes ago, Alex Moss said:

You say it’s nothing personal, FD, but then go on to make the point that you barely pay any attention to Bill, or rather his posts. Which, with respect, sounds like you’ve obviously made a very conscientious decision to do this, and certainly suggests you have paid attention and you’ve already decided you don’t like what he posts, thus your reason to ignore or both notice’ them. Otherwise, how could you not notice posts from a prominent and prolific poster on here? - unavoidable when you’re checking in most days, even for a few minutes.

As for the the debate over whether watching streams is morally right or not, the way I see it is that Bill’s just tried to help out people on here. Irrespective of the legalities or morale aspect, the act in itself has no benefit to Bill (the opposite if anything) and just suggests he’s thinking of others on here, which in itself is certainly not a bad quality. If I’m honest, thoughtfulness is always a far more pleasant quality than being a snitch - legally or not. Personally, I don’t think that makes Bill a disgusting person at all.

FD is only responding with a couple of jabs because of the stuff Bill wrote about him when his thread was reported.

His thread shouldn't need reporting. It should be taken down by mods because not only is it illegal, it could be illegal and taking money from the club. If Bill wants to watch illegal streams thats his prerogative but it shouldn't be encouraged on a forum dedicated to a club its going to disadvantage.

As for @keelansgrandad mentioning the fact we spent no money last season and didn't offer a good enough product - maybe if everyone abided by the law and purchased iFollow for matches we'll be able to make a better fist of it next time, 'eh?

[Alex Moss 2,165]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

FD is only responding with a couple of jabs because of the stuff Bill wrote about him when his thread was reported.

His thread shouldn't need reporting. It should be taken down by mods because not only is it illegal, it could be illegal and taking money from the club. If Bill wants to watch illegal streams thats his prerogative but it shouldn't be encouraged on a forum dedicated to a club its going to disadvantage.

As for @keelansgrandad mentioning the fact we spent no money last season and didn't offer a good enough product - maybe if everyone abided by the law and purchased iFollow for matches we'll be able to make a better fist of it next time, 'eh?

I was of the understanding that there was no beef prior to this between Bill and FD, just from what FD wrote, C - didn’t witness what you’d mentioned myself. I’m in full agreement though about the streaming issue itself - we should definitely all be doing our part to support the club, especially at the time of a pandemic, and most of us are. I do think that Bill was only trying to be helpful though, rightly or wrongly. Which in itself doesn’t make him a disgusting person - I think that’s a bit harsh. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,033]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

FD is only responding with a couple of jabs because of the stuff Bill wrote about him when his thread was reported.

His thread shouldn't need reporting. It should be taken down by mods because not only is it illegal, it could be illegal and taking money from the club. If Bill wants to watch illegal streams thats his prerogative but it shouldn't be encouraged on a forum dedicated to a club its going to disadvantage.

As for @keelansgrandad mentioning the fact we spent no money last season and didn't offer a good enough product - maybe if everyone abided by the law and purchased iFollow for matches we'll be able to make a better fist of it next time, 'eh?

Your last paragraph is a joke surely?

[hogesar 9,720]

3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Your last paragraph is a joke surely?

Not at all. As @king canary and several others have stated, if you go out of your way to take an illegal option for watching NCFC instead of using the platform they benefit financially from then you really have no right to demand the club goes and spends a load of money on players when you've actively avoided supporting the club. 

[The Bristol Nest 517]

Six pages of this drivel! Bells gone. Time to leave the playground.

[Midlands Yellow 4,033]

37 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Not at all. As @king canary and several others have stated, if you go out of your way to take an illegal option for watching NCFC instead of using the platform they benefit financially from then you really have no right to demand the club goes and spends a load of money on players when you've actively avoided supporting the club. 

What about the membership scam? People fleeced for that could of got a weeks shopping at Aldi. It works both ways really. 

[hogesar 9,720]

8 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

What about the membership scam? People fleeced for that could of got a weeks shopping at Aldi. It works both ways really. 

Didn't the club admit to getting that wrong, offered solutions to fix it and met with fans groups? Whereas those illegally streaming instead of using iFollow, going by this thread, are doing the opposite and doubling down instead.

[NFN FC 1,123]

51 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Not at all. As @king canary and several others have stated, if you go out of your way to take an illegal option for watching NCFC instead of using the platform they benefit financially from then you really have no right to demand the club goes and spends a load of money on players when you've actively avoided supporting the club. 

It doesn't take money from the club. These people aren't gonna spend the money if there's no illegal stream. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,033]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

Didn't the club admit to getting that wrong, offered solutions to fix it and met with fans groups? Whereas those illegally streaming instead of using iFollow, going by this thread, are doing the opposite and doubling down instead.

I didn’t know people were reimbursed in full, fair play to the club on that one.

[hogesar 9,720]

Just now, NFN FC said:

It doesn't take money from the club. These people aren't gonna spend the money if there's no illegal stream. 

That's simply not true. It's been proven time and time again - when illegal streams are harder to come by (when there's temporary crackdowns on IPTV etc) the sales of Sky Sport Day Passes etc increase. There's quite a bit online about it. It's a bit naive to think if the illegal stream wasn't available everyone would go "Nah, not gonna watch it then". Some might do. Not all.

[NFN FC 1,123]

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

That's simply not true. It's been proven time and time again - when illegal streams are harder to come by (when there's temporary crackdowns on IPTV etc) the sales of Sky Sport Day Passes etc increase. There's quite a bit online about it. It's a bit naive to think if the illegal stream wasn't available everyone would go "Nah, not gonna watch it then". Some might do. Not all.

Fair enough. 

I'm glad the moderators have 'cracked down' then. I'm sure that our income will have swelled on the last match. 

[FenwayFrank 2,463]

9 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I guess is akin to flashing other drivers when there is a mobile speed trap nearby. 

This is twice we’ve agreed on something recently, must be lockdown 😉😁

[TIL 1010 4,779]

I am a tad surprised that City1st has not yet accused FD and me of being the same poster with different log ins. 😛

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by TIL 1010

[NFN FC 1,123]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am a tad surprised that City1st has not yet accused FD and me of being the same poster with different log ins. 😛

 

[Greavsy 2,419]

1 hour ago, FenwayFrank said:

This is twice we’ve agreed on something recently, must be lockdown 😉😁

Tis the season of goodwill to all men, so I assume that includes you FF! 😊 😊 

Just don't let agreeing with me become a habit. I have my reputation think of. 😂 

[king canary 7,654]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am a tad surprised that City1st has not yet accused FD and me of being the same poster with different log ins. 😛

 

As far as I'm aware the only person who's mentioned you on this thread is...you?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

9 hours ago, hogesar said:

FD is only responding with a couple of jabs because of the stuff Bill wrote about him when his thread was reported.

His thread shouldn't need reporting. It should be taken down by mods because not only is it illegal, it could be illegal and taking money from the club. If Bill wants to watch illegal streams thats his prerogative but it shouldn't be encouraged on a forum dedicated to a club its going to disadvantage.

As for @keelansgrandad mentioning the fact we spent no money last season and didn't offer a good enough product - maybe if everyone abided by the law and purchased iFollow for matches we'll be able to make a better fist of it next time, 'eh?

Hoggy, if you read one of my posts properly you will see I spent a whole season purchasing iFollow then to have it taken away when we went into the EPL. So the club couldn't give a monkeys about me then. Get lost we are in the EPL was the attitude.