Liverpool FC Forum

[babu]

Thats not the point though s@int. The point is it wasn't even worth a warning what he said, but he got a full posting ban.
What dawson just said is alot worse and its not funny. I'm not offended by it, I just think it should be the same rules for all rather than one rule for one, one for another.Regardless of Stu's past.

Smeg,

You want to talk about double standards? Ok then.

Stu was banned, as 'Stu the Red'.

He came back awhile ago, and was banned again.

Now he is here as ladaeulcteg.

The double standard is that if identified as someone who is previuosly banned, he should be banned again without comment. A Ban is A Ban.

The way i understand it is, Stu came back as an alter ego, and once he was identified, the mods gave him a choice - Ban again or quit abusing people and be allowed to post.

Now he should not have been allowed to post in the first place - that is the only double standard i can see

Don't get me wrong, I like Stu's footballing post's, and his abuse does not worry me, but adds to the flavour IMO.

[112-1077774096]

i think the only person who needs to get a clue in this thread is smeg, i have already explained it to you in pm 2 days ago, but now here we go again with the final explanation on this.

i suggest that this time you all read it, digest it and understand it.


stu was initially banned for racism and abuse, he sneaked back on the board under a different name so I banned him again (just as i would with sany banned member).

I did stu the courtesy of telling him to contact us and ask for his ban to be lifetd rather than sneaking around the board (when its obvious who he is).

he contacted us and we all agreed to give him a chance, however he was aware that NO abuse would be tolerated from him given his past.

he abused that within one day so i banned him, I am struggling to see where the problem is here guys. If people are so desperate for stus views then he can be found on msn.

the big difference is that stu knew it would lead to a ban but he went ahead with his abuse anyway, if people complain about the other abuse on here then that will be dealt with the same way as any other poster would be dealt with (excluding stu as his circumstances are different).

i even warned stu in the thread and his next post contained abuse. a guy like that does not deserve a chance. now enough time has ben wasted on this.

I will keep the thread open for people to air their views, but i would expect all of you to not really question it anymore as it has ben explained many many times

[JBG]

Yes, Peewee is 100% right in this.

It also seems lost on Smeg that Stu was posting here for more than two years before Smeg joined (and at the very least one year before Smeg posted under his former username RAFABENITEZ). Stu had been in and out of trouble from day one and has been given more second chances on this forum than anybody else.

I like Stu but if he's dumb enough to break the rules repeatedly knowing full well the consequences then thats his problem, not the moderators' and not the forums'.

[tommycockles]

As most people here seem to think- Stu can (sometimes) post some thoughtful threads, however, the majority of the time he just throws his views around as though his is the only view that's valid and eveyone should receive abuse for thinking otherwise. Now you can either let him annoy you or just skip (as i do) past his posts- just as you ignore one of your mates in the pub when they're doing your head in.

However; unlike your mates who revert to normal once they've finished their rant  (or sobered up) Stu never seems to change. It's a shame he's been banned- but unless he can humour other peoples views he'll only continue to pi.ss people off.

[SouthCoastShankly]

Stu is just a naive little boy who needs a cuddle - far too much pent up aggression. Maybe he was smacked too much as a child?