Stevie says...

[Fop 1]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Again the unintended irony is most amusing.

 

With Renty and manc-foplite not winding themselves into a huff after trying to argue a daft point before realising how completely silly they look and slinking off to lick their wound and pretend it didn't happen, it just wouldn't be Toontastic.

 

You had to do 'funny' if you were going to make a meaningful counter to my point there, otherwise it would just look like an obsessed, compulsive, involuntary response. Which of course it was.

 

tbh.

 

Admittedly the counterpoint to you and Renty would be "funny", Fop agrees. But you really shouldn't be so hard on yourselves.

[Fop 1]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

 

That's mostly women (although again Fop doesn't think it's anything as specific as immune system - "there's an immune system smell encode protein!!! - Rention"), men don't have to worry so much and..... well don't.

[ChezGiven 0]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

Not wanting to side track the issue, but does anyone remember last year (I think) the case of the twin brother and sister who were adopted seperately, met each other, fell in love and got married, without knowing they were related? Iirc at the time the experts said that it is common for siblings to be mutually attracted to each other outside the context of the family. Now this would suggest two things: firstly that the immunology theory is untrue; and secondly that not fucking your sister is learnt behaviour rather than genetic hard wiring. Of course it's only a theory based on anecdote, but perhaps highlights the complex interplay of genes and the environment.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...66/ai_n8706748/

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90412080748.htm

[The Fish 10963]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

Surely if the others DNA is fitter happier more productive, you'd be able to piggyback your genes on a more successful entity, ensuring your survival, in some way shape or form. Of course if their DNA is not dominant you've got as much chance of taking the potent genetic predispositions into your own offspring as anything else?

 

I am of course an absolute layman with regards to Genetics. But I do likes a good natter

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, remember your blood pressure.

 

There are basically two types of poster on here; the one that can have a laugh and the one that can't. You and Fop take these things way too seriously and get genuinely wound up to the point you both end up a frenzied, obsessive mess (I see Fop has another addition to his sig btw).

 

Obviously you've been here before, having left the forum previously vowing never to return amidst a tirade of c-words, a complete seething ball of resentment. I wondered at first why anyone who got so palpably upset would bother coming back to post again being as they didn't have to, but then it became obvious you were still pursuing Renton with your rabid agenda. With that level of obsession it's no wonder you eventually ended up allying yourself ever so tragically with Fop.

 

I can't think of a single reason to post here other than I get a laugh out of it and that's been the case for about seven years now. I genuinely laugh when I read the posts in this thread (and others like it) but I suspect you and Fop have a fundementally different reaction and thereafter, reason for posting.

 

 

you sound almost as bothered as you did when our last chairman "embarrassed" you so when we only played regularly in europe, culiminating in complaining about those beastly mancs laughing at you

[LeazesMag 0]

Oh Lordy dear, LM if you cannot work out what Manc Mag means how can you possibly be expected to understand that when Fop posts in most threads and usually endeavours to turn those threads into a show and tell of psychological illness, when he does this he creates for himself a little world that spins around him, hanging on his every word.

 

Honestly it's like he logs into the board like other people with his psyche log in to computer games and the like. We don't exist outside of this forum and when he's in here he truly believes that he's different to the rest of us. He maintains this delusion by never disclosing anything revealing about himself, his actual beliefs or his life off the board.

 

Of course he's clearly a clever lad, unfortunately his manner and... quirks means that in an arena that didn't afford him anonymity he'd be dismissed instantly. You've stuck his colours to your mast because your enemies enemy is your friend. It's as sycophantic as it is transparent.

 

Of course you'll both now reply with dismissal and/or ridicule, you with base vocabulary and Fop with insane ramblings, but that's OK.

 

This is true, Leazes has chosen to ally himself with the forum's mentalist purely in an attempt to get at me and manc-mag. I remember a couple of weeks ago he said how he agreed with one of Fop's peculiar opinions, but when challenged couldn't explain what he actually agreed with. That's about as pathetic as you can get imo, well that, and yet again trying to turn a general chat thread into a discussion about the old board.

 

I've requested to Leazes several times now that he drops this shit but it seems he can't help himself and I'm forced again to defend myself. Well Leazes, just to reiterate my position, I want nothing to do with you, and frankly I find your obsessive behaviour more than a bit disturbing. Please refrain from addressing me directly or indirectly again you sad, sad man. The problem is, you really just can't help yourself though, can you? To prove I'm wrong, simply don't answer this post, don't mention me again, and I'll reciprocate. Ta.

 

flounce. [just because you were wrong.....]

[Renton 21987]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

Not wanting to side track the issue, but does anyone remember last year (I think) the case of the twin brother and sister who were adopted seperately, met each other, fell in love and got married, without knowing they were related? Iirc at the time the experts said that it is common for siblings to be mutually attracted to each other outside the context of the family. Now this would suggest two things: firstly that the immunology theory is untrue; and secondly that not fucking your sister is learnt behaviour rather than genetic hard wiring. Of course it's only a theory based on anecdote, but perhaps highlights the complex interplay of genes and the environment.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...66/ai_n8706748/

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90412080748.htm

 

I wasn't denying those theories exist Chez mate, indeed I'd heard of them before. I was just pointing out there is also some contrary opinion and also (very flimsy) contrary evidence.

 

Anyway, here's the story - I can't imagine how gutted they must have felt when they found out.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7182817.stm

[Fop 1]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

Surely if the others DNA is fitter happier more productive, you'd be able to piggyback your genes on a more successful entity, ensuring your survival, in some way shape or form. Of course if their DNA is not dominant you've got as much chance of taking the potent genetic predispositions into your own offspring as anything else?

 

I am of course an absolute layman with regards to Genetics. But I do likes a good natter

 

Aye, but the overriding factor is genes getting themselves passed on (or in some cases very closely related genes passed on), not necessarily the fitness of the gene population.

 

Of course on another level there is that too (and that probably helped account for human "races" saying relatively similar due to gene flow over the years).

 

 

 

Although there are other things to consider when thinking about genetic "xenophobia" too, food competition, disease, warfare, all factoring into the complex equation that results in a population flourishing or not and the genetic behaviours that might encourage that.

[trophyshy 7084]

we all share genes with fop.

[Fop 1]

we all share genes with fop.

Not so many these days, genetic manipulation is the future!

[manc-mag 1]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

 

Did you even bother to read the paragraph below the one you've bolded? It's completely selfish; that's precisely my point.

[Fop 1]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

 

Did you even bother to read the paragraph below the one you've bolded? It's completely selfish; that's precisely my point.

 

That's true, but that's still too simple a view, which is Fop's point (and Renty's nadir).

[manc-mag 1]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

 

That's mostly women (although again Fop doesn't think it's anything as specific as immune system - "there's an immune system smell encode protein!!! - Rention"), men don't have to worry so much and..... well don't.

 

 

Don't women count?

[manc-mag 1]

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

Still looking at it far too simply.

 

What's the evolutionary advantage in others coming into your gene population to you and your genes? Not a lot (in the end genes are "selfish", there can be altruism in genetic behaviour, but in the end there's always some positive to the passing on of genes in that).

 

Now the advantage of you spreading your genes into others gene population? Quite a lot.

 

 

 

So while you might be up for dipping your wick (or sneakily spreading your legs) in (or for) some other groups DNA, that doesn't therefore mean you'd welcome them (and their friends) into your own group with open arms (or legs).

 

Did you even bother to read the paragraph below the one you've bolded? It's completely selfish; that's precisely my point.

 

That's true, but that's still too simple a view, which is Fop's point (and Renty's nadir).

 

 

I've already made the point that this thread (as it stands) oversimplifies everything. All you had to do was scroll one further paragraph down though, if you weren't just solely intent on point scoring.

[Fop 1]

To be fair to fop, he seemed to be the only one who got the subtle point i made on page 16 which was a reflection on human instinct. This 'instinct' is really interesting me at the moment, as it can also be labelled 'knowledge' as it reflects a set of assumptions that we have about the world before we are born. These 'instincts' / 'knowledge' / 'assumptions' are seen very clear in the plant and animal world, where language and consciousness are different but the genetic mechanism for translating experience from one generation to the next is the same. As this is core to the evolutionary process, its clear that any form of behaviour that protects the gene line (a suspicion of strangers with a different appearance or the assumption that insects exist which will be attracted to my attractive flower petals to ensure that my pollen is spread), is encoded in the gene itself.

 

Tribal behaviour does not have a genetic component only if you can demonstrate that tribalism has no impact on survival of the gene. As thats a falsifiable notion, then the theory is a valid one.

 

In short, we're all wary of others who are different to us as they may be a threat. Since we know that humans have had to fight 'outsiders' since before history to survive, it would be a surprise to me if that behaviour is not encoded, given its importance to the survival of the gene over (perhaps) millions of years.

 

Fight of flight is encoded I'd imagine.

 

As for difference, I think that is culturally determined.

 

 

Probably inclined to agree with this.

 

I don't think a genetic explanation alone can account for something as complex as 'racism' (in what we understand that to mean). For instance, developing on what you say Chez, theres also cogent argument that we discriminate in favour of genetic characteristics that are different to our own, in order to broaden the gene pool and increase the prospects of healthy offspring. I don't think Renton 'didn't get' what you meant in all honesty.

 

I think on one very basic level there's general discrimination in everyone against anything which militates against the propagation of one's own genes. You can take that to the absolute nth degree though.

 

There is actually a lot of truth in that. Apparently when choosing our sexual partners we can 'smell' their immune system and choose partners with different ones, ensuring that the offspring's immune system benefits from the broadest genetic experience.

 

In a system as complex as human biology, not everything works in unison in the same direction. The fear of 'others' would have dominated the life of our genes for thousands if not millions of years before we had language. On the other hand the ability to smell and identify a compatible immune system was probably more dominant in our behaviour in the past than it is in the modern world.

 

 

That's mostly women (although again Fop doesn't think it's anything as specific as immune system - "there's an immune system smell encode protein!!! - Rention"), men don't have to worry so much and..... well don't.

 

 

Don't women count?

 

Yes, sometime right up to 5 or 6.

 

 

 

However the point is it illustrates the complexity of it all, in this case women probably do it because they have much more to lose from mating with a "rubbish" mate.

 

Men don't need too be so bothered about that and so don't display the same behaviour (at least to the same degree).

[Fop 1]

I've already made the point that this thread (as it stands) oversimplifies everything. All you had to do was scroll one further paragraph down though, if you weren't just solely intent on point scoring.

 

You're contradicting yourself in that paragraph, there's no need for Fop to do it.

[manc-mag 1]

 

 

Don't women count?

 

Yes, sometime right up to 5 or 6.

 

 

 

However the point is it illustrates the complexity of it all, in this case women probably do it because they have much more to lose from mating with a "rubbish" mate.

 

Men don't need too be so bothered about that and so don't display the same behaviour (at least to the same degree).

 

Ah. So they do count then. They'll have the vote next.

[Gejon 2]

I love these threads

 

Trouble with the daft shite, is I reminded the poor dear how wrong he had been about his belief that anybody but Shepherd would be better for the club and wouldn't embarrass him anymore, and he can't believe a smart lad like himself got it so wrong.

 

Probably an inappropriate smiley but what the fuck, I've seen 2 relegations and this will be the 3rd time.

 

NE5 back from the pub again!

 

Turning any old thread into a new board/old board debate, well obviously someone else started it

 

I don't drink in the afternoons, dumb cunt ....... and I've been watching 2 football matches on the TV.

 

I'm off out now though.

 

It isn't my fault that mancmag has an inferiority complex and has decided to become my stalker.

 

 

I have a feeling you do, or at least your poor wife must.

 

Well. You're wrong, Again. Like mancmag was - and one or two other smart lads

 

Do you have a wife ?

 

No, you aren't trying it on with me are you?

[Happy Face 29]

Stevie says:

Nick and you can tell them, if they want to allow wums from other clubs, wums full stop, racists, people that know fuck all about football, kids, fucking mackems, people with nothing to say on that forum, while banning me without even having the decency to tell me why I'm banned, well fuck them, i've posted my last post on that board, some of them will be happy but fuck them if that's their attitute

 

 

 

 

BUMP

 

[manc-mag 1]

I'll bet you any money he's back btw

 

BUMP

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Surely this is gold?

[Gejon 2]

Stevie always says he is leaving but never fucks off, attention seeker tbh.

[Craig 6700]

Stevie says:

Nick and you can tell them, if they want to allow wums from other clubs, wums full stop, racists, people that know fuck all about football, kids, fucking mackems, people with nothing to say on that forum, while banning me without even having the decency to tell me why I'm banned, well fuck them, i've posted my last post on that board, some of them will be happy but fuck them if that's their attitute

 

 

 

 

BUMP

 

 

Is he claiming he's been banned again?

[Guest Stevie]

Stevie says:

Nick and you can tell them, if they want to allow wums from other clubs, wums full stop, racists, people that know fuck all about football, kids, fucking mackems, people with nothing to say on that forum, while banning me without even having the decency to tell me why I'm banned, well fuck them, i've posted my last post on that board, some of them will be happy but fuck them if that's their attitute

 

 

 

 

BUMP

 

 

Is he claiming he's been banned again?

What you on about now Craig????

[Besty 4]

Stevie says:

Nick and you can tell them, if they want to allow wums from other clubs, wums full stop, racists, people that know fuck all about football, kids, fucking mackems, people with nothing to say on that forum, while banning me without even having the decency to tell me why I'm banned, well fuck them, i've posted my last post on that board, some of them will be happy but fuck them if that's their attitute

 

 

 

 

BUMP

 

 

Is he claiming he's been banned again?

 

Check the date...