TOPIC:

Dirty Weekender wrote: As a swans supporter I must say I find it highly disturbing that I may be unable to voice my opinion on this forum if it is not in line with any moderator's personality opinion. No reason was given for the removal of the thread which is what baffled me. I didn't see the final posts from the removed thread so will give the benefit of the doubt here as to why George removed it but would hope future discussions regarding the comings and goings of the SDFC both on and off the field are not off limits to discussion and debate.

DW I also didn't see the last few comments on the topic. However, based on the comments attributed to our President, Peter Hodyl, in George's explanation of why the topic was removed it seems to me that it was reasonable to remove the topic. One has to take the comments that we DID NOT make a loss last season and we haven't had a resignation from the board at face value. Having been a "victim" of one of my topics being removed from this forum I fully accept that it is George's prerogative to remove a topic if he deems fit. Personally I think George has provided a forum where robust discussions, on a wide range of topics, are open for all and we should accept a certain degree of bias towards Swans, in fact I applaud it, on this site.

Also, I think it might be appropriate to indicate here that I have been informed by the former Swans' director he, nor any of his family, is NOT the author of the removed topic.

Forgot to welcome you on board TOS....you also now inherent the privilege of bitching about Subi at every given opportunity

Theouterseagull wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote: Hi eveyone so hapy too now bee on the whinning team i look forward too the ful protecshon of admin and beeing free to personaly atack other suporters but if thay fire back they are in twoble
Happy to now bee a swan

Not a good choice of teams tos, you get a really raw deal from the umpires every single game, even when you win.

But we have the moast suporters and that what realy maters and a can bar shaped like a animal way better than $ubi last time I drank at $ubi was in a stupid room full of trofees and flags

TOSG if you would like to see me the next time we play Subiaco at Basso I can give you a dictionary.

swan42 wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote: Hi eveyone so hapy too now bee on the whinning team i look forward too the ful protecshon of admin and beeing free to personaly atack other suporters but if thay fire back they are in twoble
Happy to now bee a swan

Not a good choice of teams tos, you get a really raw deal from the umpires every single game, even when you win.

But we have the moast suporters and that what realy maters and a can bar shaped like a animal way better than $ubi last time I drank at $ubi was in a stupid room full of trofees and flags

TOSG if you would like to see me the next time we play Subiaco at Basso I can give you a dictionary.

You don't get the joke do you

Theouterseagull wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote: Hi eveyone so hapy too now bee on the whinning team i look forward too the ful protecshon of admin and beeing free to personaly atack other suporters but if thay fire back they are in twoble
Happy to now bee a swan

Not a good choice of teams tos, you get a really raw deal from the umpires every single game, even when you win.

But we have the moast suporters and that what realy maters and a can bar shaped like a animal way better than $ubi last time I drank at $ubi was in a stupid room full of trofees and flags

TOSG if you would like to see me the next time we play Subiaco at Basso I can give you a dictionary.

You don't get the joke do you

TOSG I repeat I have aspare dictionary or two if you would like to avail yourself of the use of one, please let me know.

swan42 wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote:

Tiger of old wrote:

Theouterseagull wrote: Hi eveyone so hapy too now bee on the whinning team i look forward too the ful protecshon of admin and beeing free to personaly atack other suporters but if thay fire back they are in twoble
Happy to now bee a swan

Not a good choice of teams tos, you get a really raw deal from the umpires every single game, even when you win.

But we have the moast suporters and that what realy maters and a can bar shaped like a animal way better than $ubi last time I drank at $ubi was in a stupid room full of trofees and flags

TOSG if you would like to see me the next time we play Subiaco at Basso I can give you a dictionary.

You don't get the joke do you

TOSG I repeat I have aspare dictionary or two if you would like to avail yourself of the use of one, please let me know.

no thanks im a duckhead now I walk talk and spel just like yoose guys

swan42 wrote:

Dirty Weekender wrote: As a swans supporter I must say I find it highly disturbing that I may be unable to voice my opinion on this forum if it is not in line with any moderator's personality opinion. No reason was given for the removal of the thread which is what baffled me. I didn't see the final posts from the removed thread so will give the benefit of the doubt here as to why George removed it but would hope future discussions regarding the comings and goings of the SDFC both on and off the field are not off limits to discussion and debate.

DW I also didn't see the last few comments on the topic. However, based on the comments attributed to our President, Peter Hodyl, in George's explanation of why the topic was removed it seems to me that it was reasonable to remove the topic. One has to take the comments that we DID NOT make a loss last season and we haven't had a resignation from the board at face value. Having been a "victim" of one of my topics being removed from this forum I fully accept that it is George's prerogative to remove a topic if he deems fit. Personally I think George has provided a forum where robust discussions, on a wide range of topics, are open for all and we should accept a certain degree of bias towards Swans, in fact I applaud it, on this site.

Also, I think it might be appropriate to indicate here that I have been informed by the former Swans' director he, nor any of his family, is NOT the author of the removed topic.

Umm, excuse me but why just because George owns this forum built by his relative Mike should there be biased towards Swan Districts fc or its supporters on here? If a similar post was made with similar accusations on any other clubs thread I doubt it would raise the same attention from George and even if some posts were reported to the administrator I doubt any action would be taken because it would quite rightly be seen as free speech and simply a topic being debated.

I suspect perhaps your clubs president had the posts brought to his attention and being well known that George Copley owns this site he was contacted and told to remove it.

I've got a real problem with club administrators leaning on forum owners to remove posts because they don't like someones opinion. It's not the first time it's happened.

Lets face it Outer must feel a little out of water being a twuck dwiving $cumiaco supporter amongst the other 10 who are either lawyers, accountants or on life support at Rokeby Retirement Village!

DD wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Dirty Weekender wrote: As a swans supporter I must say I find it highly disturbing that I may be unable to voice my opinion on this forum if it is not in line with any moderator's personality opinion. No reason was given for the removal of the thread which is what baffled me. I didn't see the final posts from the removed thread so will give the benefit of the doubt here as to why George removed it but would hope future discussions regarding the comings and goings of the SDFC both on and off the field are not off limits to discussion and debate.

DW I also didn't see the last few comments on the topic. However, based on the comments attributed to our President, Peter Hodyl, in George's explanation of why the topic was removed it seems to me that it was reasonable to remove the topic. One has to take the comments that we DID NOT make a loss last season and we haven't had a resignation from the board at face value. Having been a "victim" of one of my topics being removed from this forum I fully accept that it is George's prerogative to remove a topic if he deems fit. Personally I think George has provided a forum where robust discussions, on a wide range of topics, are open for all and we should accept a certain degree of bias towards Swans, in fact I applaud it, on this site.

Also, I think it might be appropriate to indicate here that I have been informed by the former Swans' director he, nor any of his family, is NOT the author of the removed topic.

Umm, excuse me but why just because George owns this forum built by his relative Mike should there be biased towards Swan Districts fc or its supporters on here? If a similar post was made with similar accusations on any other clubs thread I doubt it would raise the same attention from George and even if some posts were reported to the administrator I doubt any action would be taken because it would quite rightly be seen as free speech and simply a topic being debated.

I suspect perhaps your clubs president had the posts brought to his attention and being well known that George Copley owns this site he was contacted and told to remove it.

I've got a real problem with club administrators leaning on forum owners to remove posts because they don't like someones opinion. It's not the first time it's happened.

DD I am not going to defend George's positionl he is more than competent to do that for himself. However, what is your view of WAFC putting pressure to remove their own expressed views from appearing on this forum?

Also, it is not a matter of free speech per se. It was fundamentally WRONG according to the Swans' President. We have our AGM in early February, so we don't have long for offiial confirmation via our audited financial statements. As for suppression of views; I distinctly recall Clear Viewe expressing his views as facts and being challenged to provide proof of his so-called "facts" to our Treasurer.

Fair enough S42 if things are said that are factually untrue but surely just a response stating that is enough? Does the thread have to be removed and and big explanation given at the top of the forum? My point is it wouldn't happen for any other club.

If the WAFC are sticking their beeck in here and putting pressure on George to remove stuff they should be told to go forth and multiply.