|
Post by cm7 on Jul 20, 2010 20:09:52 GMT
I agree with Dav, wouldve banned Mr.Foster along time ago.
Comes on here with his idiotic comments that add nothing to the conversation, and simply boring and also pointless. It got to the point the Chelmsford soapbox even made a messageboard he couldnt access.
|
|
|
Post by peterfoster on Jul 20, 2010 22:34:37 GMT
It's just the name of a football club, dearie.... I hear that the players at Hamilton Academicals are all thick as two short planks....and as for those at Queen of the South.... PF = 22 carat plonka. Hamilton Academicals so named as they were formed at Hamilton Academy. see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Academical_F.C. Chelmsford City so named because the Club assumed that after the elevation of the Towns Parish Church to Cathedral status (circa 1926),then this made Chelmsford a City. As most people would know, It's only the Monarchy which can grant City status to a town. A decision which suggests the authors must have been about as thick as a single short plank and is still happily being parroted by the chavs. Call yourself Queens by all means as that is just a name like United or Villa and not a misrepresentation of the Towns real status. You missed the point, then, ironfoureva.... My point was that Chelmsford City is just the name of a football team not the name of a place in the same way that Hamilton Academicals players may not be "academical" at all in spite of the club's name. My mention of "Queen of the South" was a gratuitous example of playing to the gallery, I'm afraid....
|
|
|
Post by peterfoster on Jul 20, 2010 22:41:38 GMT
Getting to the stage with Mr Foster that I think its worth banning him, he adds nothing to the conversations and is frankly annoying. As for the 'City' debate, my understanding of it was that when trying to come up with a name they decided upon City rather than Rangers or Rovers, even though they knew it had no basis in fact - but because it sounded lofty. I see the arrogance long predates even the current bunch of merchant bankers Your reasons for wishing to ban me seem somewhat vague and subjective, dav.... If you find me "annoying" why not just ignore my messageborad work! If everyone who was "annoying" and "adds nothing to the conversations" were banned there probably wouldn't be many people left to post! I throw myself upon the mercy of Baswaldsmate and Iron Webbo!Kindly please provide me with details of the basis of your "understanding" about the origin of the name "Chelmsford City...."
|
|
|
Post by peterfoster on Jul 20, 2010 22:47:39 GMT
I agree with Dav, wouldve banned Mr.Foster along time ago. Comes on here with his idiotic comments that add nothing to the conversation, and simply boring and also pointless. It got to the point the Chelmsford soapbox even made a messageboard he couldnt access. That's quite correct, cm7.... The problem is that the "non PF" forum on the Chelmsford City forum is a much under-utilised resource. As to whether my comments are "idiotic" and "add nothing to the conversation." Shirley this is a subjective assessment. Certainly, whenever I post I seem to generate a lot or responses! And isn't that the point of a public forum? Why seek to ban me just because you don't agree with what I post?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jul 21, 2010 6:58:10 GMT
Time we put this thread to bed. I don't see any real reason for Peter Foster to be banned despite his tedious postings.
Why Mr Foster would throw himself at anyone but the Administrators mercy has me puzzled, this is a fans forum and while we have the same aims as the Club, it is not administered by the Club as such. I wonder, is that soapbox forum a facility run by the board of Directors at CCFC?
|
|