Jofnn's banhammer
Jofnn's banhammer
This place is like the USSR sometimes. The irritating thing is how people are only considered to be "wumming" if they say something against the accepted GW doctrine. And yet the WUMs who mercilessly criticise players who are not flavour of the month(like Walcott) even when it is unwarranted are let off the hook. It's a bit pathetic tbh. Then there's the fact that there are posters who chase Zim around and hound him whenever he has the temerity to voice an opinion. Why are these posters never censured?
'accepted GW doctrine'
Grow up
joker iz rite.
Come on, there is an accepted doctrine here, which is why the wumming that posters like Zim or PnG face when they voice an unpopular opinion about Wenger, Gazidis, Giroud etc seem to get ignored.
unlike your face lolzOriginally Posted by Marc Overmars
Generally depends on the way things are posted. Sometimes people have genuine opinions, other times it's obvious WUMming. It's not that hard to tell the difference.
So why do some choose to home in on Ollie when he dares to be positive about the club he loves if you aren't trying to 'indoctrinate'?
You're the one that tries to make everything so divisive, with the language you choose to use. You're nowhere to be seen in a thread until you can wade in with the same language time after time.
Maybe it can be tolerated in other threads but with a match thread which really shouldn't be a vehicle to have the same discussions on repeat, you can understand why Zim was banned from it. Especially when a lot of times he hasn't even watched the match but goes in to have the same arguments.
The divisiveness is due to the +1 agenda driven posts that people make, deliberately posting an opinion that is the exact opposite of the posters they don't like. And it's not just Zim, Cripps etc who engage in this yet it appears they are always pulled up on it.
So who on here is Samba and who is Clint Hill?
Reply With Quote
