Anyone Drinks in Rosies Pre-Match?

[BottledDog]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports, or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

[indi]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

[Howaythelads]

Why did you delete your post HTL, just out of interest?

 

Because despite the nonsense I'm reading in this thread I don't really want to get into an argument about it with certain people who think it's ok for others  to do anything they like.  I daresay the same people would get on the moral high horse about some issues.

[Howaythelads]

Why did you delete your post HTL, just out of interest?

 

My "ffs" was in response to a pretty ridiculous comment-- it's gone now.

 

Rather a ridiculous comment than a typically fatuous one from yourself. Doubt you understood it, tbh.

 

When you understand values, standards and respect you'll get what I mean.

[Howaythelads]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

 

I think what you were saying was pretty obvious, tbh. Maybe it was a "time of day" thing. Or night....whatever.

[Guest toonlass]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

[Howaythelads]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

[BottledDog]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

 

Sorry. Ignore me and my post pub rants. Somehow the sentence "I agree with you completely" got somehow corrupted on the way down to my fingers.

 

Man, I'm a terrible drunk. :-[

[indi]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

 

Sorry. Ignore me and my post pub rants. I'm a terrible drunk. :-[

 

No worries, mate.

[Howaythelads]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

 

Sorry. Ignore me and my post pub rants. I'm a terrible drunk. :-[

 

Good one, mate.

[Guest toonlass]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

[BottledDog]

Loving the irony in this thread.

 

People defending .com by saying: "It's their site they can do what they want."

 

Try replacing "site" with "pub" and see where that takes you.

 

Irony? No, you've lost me. A pub cannot do fundraisers for locals like the lad who ran in his toon top the length of Britain? A pub landlord canot give his opinion on how shitly staff are treated down the local bookies/pub/whatever? What the fuck are you talking about. They can say what the fuck they like.

 

They can say whatever the fuck pisses them off, interests them, grinds their fucking gears. It's their site. they pay for it. If you find it of use that's all well and good. if not, they couldn't/or at least shouldn't give a shit.

 

I don't frequent the site, but find it useful whether it be seeing whether my opinion coincides with their match reports or just checking up on transfers or old stats. They are not the fucking BBC, it's not like you pay taxes for their impartiality.

 

Have you changed your mind about me "growing the fuck up" then?

 

If you don't understand what irony is, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you. I'll just ask you a simple question:

 

Should the owner of a pub not have the same rights as the owner of a website to do what they want with their business?

 

Having re-read your post it's pretty obvious that you totally misunderstood what I was saying, which was: that it's inconsistent for someone to criticise people for passing comment on what someone else has said, by saying that the original person has the right to say whatever they want and should be free to criticise the actions of a third person. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

I never actually gave my own opinion on the matter so the majority of your post is completely irrelevant to what I did say, but I'll give it now. I think that the pub owner has the right to run his pub as he sees fit, that .com have the right to run their website as they see fit, and we have the right to criticise them as we see fit. Is that ok with you?

 

Sorry. Ignore me and my post pub rants. I'm a terrible drunk. :-[

 

No worries, mate.

 

Gah, I'm also a bit rubbish about changing my posts after I post them. Meh, happy Saturday everybody.

[indi]

That happens to me and all.

[Guest Pie]

That's pretty sh*t by nufc.com. The new owners might want to change things. That's business. If they don't want to drink there, fair enough. But why advertise the fact to try and stop others?

 

Because they think they're more important than they really are?

 

They're mongs, tbh.

The irony.

[lovejoy]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

 

 

The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us

 

encouraging and urging are not to different imo

 

[Howaythelads]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not.

 

Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also.

 

Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? 

 

[Howaythelads]

That's pretty sh*t by nufc.com. The new owners might want to change things. That's business. If they don't want to drink there, fair enough. But why advertise the fact to try and stop others?

 

Because they think they're more important than they really are?

 

They're mongs, tbh.

The irony.

 

I don't recognise who you are so I can only assume you've :

 

1. Posted here before under a different name and wish to hide the fact.

2. You post on a different forum under a different name where I don't post anymore. Perhaps you told me Jenas was 'ace' and

Ameobi is the next Shearer.

3. Maybe I just haven't noticed anything you have to say on here.

 

I'll not bother throwing myself off the nearest bridge at your low opinion of me.

[Cajun]

[Optimistic Nut]

For the record, I don't visit .com. I only comment on what others have read about and posted on here.

[Guest toonlass]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not.

 

Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also.

 

Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? 

 

 

 

"Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer.

 

Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances.

 

The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us."

 

If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views?

 

You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. 

 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not.

 

Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also.

 

Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? 

 

 

 

"Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer.

 

Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances.

 

The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us."

 

If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views?

 

You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. 

 

 

 

 

It always makes me laugh when someone uses the easy throw-away remark about "taking yourself so seriously" toward someone because they have a different opinion to their own.

 

My example of a person posting a RACIST REMARK attracted the response from you I expected. What you fail to understand is that the impact of a boycott on a business can lead to failure of that business. This will be more important to the business owner, their family and their current employees than a "RACIST REMARK" made on the internet. But you believe the opposite for some peculiar reason.

 

Do you support yourself, by the way? Or are you a sponger off someone else? The second option might explain your complacent attitude.

 

I really don't expect a person like you to understand that there actually could be a serious side to this, my guess is you're too busy looking after number 1 to give a shit about anyone else.

 

[Guest toonlass]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not.

 

Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also.

 

Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? 

 

 

 

"Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer.

 

Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances.

 

The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us."

 

If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views?

 

You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. 

 

 

 

 

It always makes me laugh when someone uses the easy throw-away remark about "taking yourself so seriously" toward someone because they have a different opinion to their own.

 

My example of a person posting a RACIST REMARK attracted the response from you I expected. What you fail to understand is that the impact of a boycott on a business can lead to failure of that business. This will be more important to the business owner, their family and their current employees than a "RACIST REMARK" made on the internet. But you believe the opposite for some peculiar reason.

 

Do you support yourself, by the way? Or are you a sponger off someone else? The second option might explain your complacent attitude.

 

I really don't expect a person like you to understand that there actually could be a serious side to this, my guess is you're too busy looking after number 1 to give a shit about anyone else.

 

 

I beg your pardon? My personal circumstances are of no concern to you, but to answer your question Yes I do support myself, if you mean do I work. I have 3 children, who I bring up on my own and I work to provide for them. Not that its any of your business imo.

 

I also presume that you have no concern for the manageress of Rosies who did a damn fine job(did you ever drink in there btw) and who was sacked without notice when the new owners came in. I suppose her welfare is less important than the pub owners.

 

I do appreciate that there is a serious side to this, but I cannot see how people boycotting Rosies makes much of a difference to you(unless you are the new owner-and if you are maybe you would like to explain why the bar staff were sacked). My argument was that .com were expressing their opinion and no-one has to do what they say.

[Howaythelads]

Its great to watch you lot get on your moral high horse about a web site that is free to post what they want. If you don't like it don't visit their site. I don't often visit .com, just because I don't, but when I do I have never seen anything that I would find objectionable, unlike many millions of other sites that are reportedly on the internet. This reminds me of people who complain about TV programmes and yet forget they have an off switch on the damn thing.

 

I don't generally find things on there objectionable other than their pompous attitude, but encouraging people to effectively boycott a business is wrong. It's nowt to do with them in my opinion.

 

Your analogy about TV makes me laugh tbh. Do you believe in censorship and classification of films on TV? Or do you believe the most sicko films you can imagine should be shown at any time of the day on the basis there is an on/off switch?

 

My opinion on TV programmes and films has nothing to do with it.

 

Back to the Rosies issue. They are not "encouraging" anyone to do anything. They are explaining a situation and giving people the opportunity to make their own decision. Just because .com has said they will not be going into a pub does not mean that no-one else should.

 

You mentioned it. I'll draw my own conclusions about whether you believe decent standards and responsibility are good things or not.

 

Your post shows you're fairly naive, especially the last sentence because it's obvious they want people to follow their example, otherwise what would be the point? Which also shows your third sentence to be naive also.

 

Perhaps the next time someone makes a racist remark on this forum and is banned for it, you'll complain against the ban on their behalf? After all, they have a right to say what they like and nobody forces anybody else to read it. Or is that different, in your opinion? 

 

 

 

"Far be it from us to tell you lot what to do, what to shout or where to drink, but you may be interested to know of a growing boycott of the above Tyneside matchday boozer.

 

Without going into massive detail, the new owners of said bar have now turfed out the popular manageress and her staff in what are less than savoury circumstances.

 

The NUFC.com grog budget will no longer be spent in Rosie's as a result of this - and we would urge anyone and everyone to join us."

 

If we are allowed to pick and choose parts of their statement then there is an opposing one for you to mull over. Racism is a different matter, and is not comparable to an opinion on a pub, when was the last time you saw Mr Eats from the Sunday Sun whipping up a frenzy of violence and extreme views?

 

You can call me naive if you want, but maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously. I am sure I will be able to live with your opinion of me, seeing that you only know me through a message board. 

 

 

 

 

It always makes me laugh when someone uses the easy throw-away remark about "taking yourself so seriously" toward someone because they have a different opinion to their own.

 

My example of a person posting a RACIST REMARK attracted the response from you I expected. What you fail to understand is that the impact of a boycott on a business can lead to failure of that business. This will be more important to the business owner, their family and their current employees than a "RACIST REMARK" made on the internet. But you believe the opposite for some peculiar reason.

 

Do you support yourself, by the way? Or are you a sponger off someone else? The second option might explain your complacent attitude.

 

I really don't expect a person like you to understand that there actually could be a serious side to this, my guess is you're too busy looking after number 1 to give a shit about anyone else.

 

 

I beg your pardon? My personal circumstances are of no concern to you, but to answer your question Yes I do support myself, if you mean do I work. I have 3 children, who I bring up on my own and I work to provide for them. Not that its any of your business imo.

 

I also presume that you have no concern for the manageress of Rosies who did a damn fine job(did you ever drink in there btw) and who was sacked without notice when the new owners came in. I suppose her welfare is less important than the pub owners.

 

I do appreciate that there is a serious side to this, but I cannot see how people boycotting Rosies makes much of a difference to you(unless you are the new owner-and if you are maybe you would like to explain why the bar staff were sacked). My argument was that .com were expressing their opinion and no-one has to do what they say.

 

But people will and it's daft to think otherwise. This is why nufc.com have done it otherwise they wouldn't have bothered.

 

By the way, what makes you think I may be the new owner just because I think some clowns running nufc.com have overstepped the mark?

 

Regarding the previous manageress. There are employment laws in this country. Yes, her welfare is also important in this but if the new owners have done anything illegal she will be able to pursue compensation. There will have to be a reason for her to be sacked.

 

It is doubtful the people at nufc.com have the facts, it seems more likely to me that they've gone ahead with promoting a boycott that is potentially damaging based on gossip. This is irresponsible and an abuse of the popularity of their website and that's my point. I believe in people taking responsibility. It seems you don't unless you simply don't understand the point I'm making.

 

Well done for looking after 3 kids and working and that's not sarcasm. I admire you for that and I apologise for asking. I have a wife and two kids and it's hard enough.

[Optimistic Nut]

Pretty spot on post there HTL.

[Guest toonlass]

From my understanding(and not just from .com, like I said I hardly visit the site) the whole bar staff were sacked without an explanation.

 

If people will make a decision based solely on a website then they are not a full shilling imo. These people should really learn to explore the things they learn online and then make a decision.