- Banned
- #201
Lets take a example
Lance Frankin
if he came on here his ego will grow
Lance Frankin
if he came on here his ego will grow
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Players told not to read Bigfooty & other fan websites - Herald Sun
- Thread starter w00dy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #202
GREAT JOB.
- Mar 29, 2005
- 8,407
- 944
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers, Liverpool, Celtics
Very nice work Jabs, I'll be using part of your letter when I get on at 5, they just said I'm the first caller when the clock hits the hour so listen out, I'll be using my username too so it won't be too hard to work out who I am.
Cheers,
SS
SJ
Premium Platinum
Beautiful. Also some of the stuff Feerits Elf wouldn't go astray either. Looking forward to it SouthSwans.Very nice work Jabs, I'll be using part of your letter when I get on at 5, they just said I'm the first caller when the clock hits the hour so listen out, I'll be using my username too so it won't be too hard to work out who I am.
Cheers,
SS
- Banned
- #205
Mention bushy
Brasil2007
Club Legend
Very nice work Jabs, I'll be using part of your letter when I get on at 5, they just said I'm the first caller when the clock hits the hour so listen out, I'll be using my username too so it won't be too hard to work out who I am.
Cheers,
SS
Good work all those above.
It's pretty rich that a radio station built on talkback from "Macca from Mornington" has a go at us because our names aren't readily available. Unlike those in the media, most people here are in the phone book. Having said that I don't believe I've said anything on Bigfooty about someone that I wouldn't say to their face, and I think that's true of most of the regular posters here.
I also think a lot of the analysis here - certainly from the regular posters - is a lot better and certainly more balanced than 95 per cent of the media. Have a look at the circle jerk that went on through the media about St Kilda (and to a lesser extent Freo) at the start of the season, and compare that with the much more skeptical voices you saw on here. The media feeds on and is a captive of itself (and the AFL) and that means its much better at "news" - what's happening - and much worse at "analysis" - what it means.
Most sites are either regulated by the mods or by the people who post on them.
Actually, I think websites are pretty "balanced" as you get opinions on players from positive and negative perspectives.
And when someone goes overboard like Wally did, people will put him in his place, like we did.
But what I despise most about the vitriol is usually it's supporters bagging their own club's players.
Have a go at the scum clubs (the other 15 lol) but not your own.
I don't like it, would hate to be a player in this day and age, but would hate all the same for people to be censored.
I figure it's better to see the posts and you can judge the people yourself. Really opens your eyes as to who is just having a joke and those that are just vile, evil creatures!
Actually, I think websites are pretty "balanced" as you get opinions on players from positive and negative perspectives.
And when someone goes overboard like Wally did, people will put him in his place, like we did.
But what I despise most about the vitriol is usually it's supporters bagging their own club's players.
Have a go at the scum clubs (the other 15 lol) but not your own.
I don't like it, would hate to be a player in this day and age, but would hate all the same for people to be censored.
I figure it's better to see the posts and you can judge the people yourself. Really opens your eyes as to who is just having a joke and those that are just vile, evil creatures!
purremiers
Team Captain
ill second that
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
The only reason most of us don't go by our real name is we don't want weird ass stalkers who we could have offended somehow to hack into our computer or use our real name in a defamatory way off the site.
purremiers
Team Captain
agreed...as long as you know where to look and sort through the bull**** there are people on here with a football knowledge that puts many of those herald sun hacks to shame!
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
That is exactly how I feel. Yes there are morons there are also a lot of very insightful people. More than you get on talkback radio that's for sure.
That's why I take offense to the generalisation from the likes of Doran, Leach and Fine (especailly the latter since his show Finey's Final Siren is basically the closest thing to bigfooty you'll hear on radio) who say that the sites are full of crap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1585088/BBC-website-silences-Sarah-Kennedy-criticisms.html
BBC website silences Sarah Kennedy criticisms
By David Thomas
Last Updated: 2:12AM BST 14/04/2008
Listeners have been banned from making critical comments about Sarah Kennedy, the Radio 2 presenter, on the BBC's website.
Complaints left by listeners include criticism that she "crashes" tracks - continuing to talk over the words at the beginning of songs - interrupts songs halfway through and gives too many of her own opinions on the air.
One listener said the presenter "frequently gives her own beliefs much more prominence than she should as a presenter on a government-funded radio station, seems to have little interest in or knowledge of music, deliberately mispronounces words or uses annoying malapropisms".
A website moderator named "Peta", then left a message in which she said the critical discussion about the presenter last week was being closed.
"We're now having a little hiatus on the 'Sarah knocking', because it's seen to be a form of online harassment."
Miss Kennedy, 57, who hosts the Dawn Patrol show has often found herself involved in controversy. Last year, she claimed she had trouble seeing black people in the dark, remarks which drew attacks from her own listeners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/04/16/ftsarah116.xml&DCMP=ILC-traffdrv07053100
Radio 2's Sarah Kennedy: who's bullying whom?
Last Updated: 12:03am BST 16/04/2008
As its website bans comments about Radio 2's Sarah Kennedy, former presenter Sybil Ruscoe says the BBC is betraying licence payers
The poor old preening ninnies at the BBC don't like the listeners and viewers having a go at them. Their bottom lips are quivering and they're blubbing into their microphones because the licence-payers dare to question what they are doing and saying.
Didn't their mothers ever tell them that sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you?
Clearly not. The BBC has now blocked critical comments about Radio 2's early bird, Sarah Kennedy, from its website, claiming that the listeners' opinions amount to "cyber bullying" or harassment.
Even little Bill Oddie is getting twitchy about what people think of him. "Some of it is actually deeply hurtful," said the Springwatch presenter.
I don't know about Bill Oddie, but Sarah Kennedy has always seemed to me to be the kind of broadcasting bruiser who could roll with the punches. Taking criticism is part of the job, a job for which BBC presenters are handsomely rewarded.
When you're picking up £2,000-£3,000 a show - much more in television - a barbed comment from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells shouldn't reduce you to tears.
When I was a presenter on the Radio 1 Breakfast Show in the late 1980s and on Radio 5 Live in the 1990s, I was taught that as the licence payer was paying my wages, he or she could say what they liked. In those days, of course, there were no listener "messageboards" on the internet. Criticism, and praise, came by the postbag-full.
Working in national radio, I learnt to take the rough with the smooth. The author John Harvey waxed lyrical about my voice in one of his Resnick novels and fans would request signed photos and queue up for my autograph at the Radio 1 Roadshow or the Top of the Pops studio.
But lurking at the bottom of the sack, there would always be a small quota of hate mail, the more alarming of which came from crazed fans whose anger spilled across 30 pages in green-inked, spidery writing.
"Get back to Shropshire you moron," fumed one listener. "Your schoolgirl giggling is a disgrace," raged another. Some of the letters are unprintable on these pages, but however poisonous, I would always reply, thanking the correspondents for their comments. Kind or vicious, the listener had a point of view.
When I appeared on television, the comments became more personal. I was called "goofy," after Top of the Pops and told that "women should keep away from the cricket pitch and stay in the kitchen" when I joined C4 Cricket. I pressed on. I had a thick skin and the letters were pasted into a scrapbook.
Now, with messageboards, emails and text messages coming direct into a presenter's studio, the criticism is more immediate. On late-night Radio 2 a couple of years ago, I was subjected to a prolonged email campaign from one listener unhappy with my tone.
I learnt not to open her emails. And isn't that the point? Sarah Kennedy, Bill Oddie, Nicky Campbell, John Humphrys - or any of the BBC presenters - don't have to look at the messageboards or dwell on the criticism if it hurts.
So why has the BBC gagged the protesters? What has happened to free speech at Broadcasting House - Ariel's temple "of the arts and muses", as the gold inscription in the foyer grandly announces?
Could it be that the corporation has massaged the egos of its talent to such fragility that it fears a presenter could throw a wobbly live on air at any moment? I doubt it. In my experience, most national broadcasters are narcissistic enough to believe they are brilliant and talented anyway.
Perhaps it is the network controllers and editors who are uncomfortable with public criticism in this interactive age. In years gone by, a BBC secretary dealt with it privately, with a polite letter of reply.
It's ironic that just as communist China lifts its "great firewall" and unblocks access to the BBC news website after years of control, the BBC imposes its own brand of censorship.
Last week Jeremy Vine was unveiled as the new host of Points of View. The BBC press release proclaimed: "The show is more interactive than ever."
The BBC is spending millions of pounds of our licence fees in the push to be "interactive", but for all its encouragement for us to: "phone in, send us your texts and emails or visit our messageboard" what the BBC appears to be telling the audience is: "Send us your views - but only if they're nice." Barry Took must be spinning in his grave.
BBC website silences Sarah Kennedy criticisms
By David Thomas
Last Updated: 2:12AM BST 14/04/2008
Listeners have been banned from making critical comments about Sarah Kennedy, the Radio 2 presenter, on the BBC's website.
Complaints left by listeners include criticism that she "crashes" tracks - continuing to talk over the words at the beginning of songs - interrupts songs halfway through and gives too many of her own opinions on the air.
One listener said the presenter "frequently gives her own beliefs much more prominence than she should as a presenter on a government-funded radio station, seems to have little interest in or knowledge of music, deliberately mispronounces words or uses annoying malapropisms".
A website moderator named "Peta", then left a message in which she said the critical discussion about the presenter last week was being closed.
"We're now having a little hiatus on the 'Sarah knocking', because it's seen to be a form of online harassment."
Miss Kennedy, 57, who hosts the Dawn Patrol show has often found herself involved in controversy. Last year, she claimed she had trouble seeing black people in the dark, remarks which drew attacks from her own listeners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/04/16/ftsarah116.xml&DCMP=ILC-traffdrv07053100
Radio 2's Sarah Kennedy: who's bullying whom?
Last Updated: 12:03am BST 16/04/2008
As its website bans comments about Radio 2's Sarah Kennedy, former presenter Sybil Ruscoe says the BBC is betraying licence payers
The poor old preening ninnies at the BBC don't like the listeners and viewers having a go at them. Their bottom lips are quivering and they're blubbing into their microphones because the licence-payers dare to question what they are doing and saying.
Didn't their mothers ever tell them that sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you?
Clearly not. The BBC has now blocked critical comments about Radio 2's early bird, Sarah Kennedy, from its website, claiming that the listeners' opinions amount to "cyber bullying" or harassment.
Even little Bill Oddie is getting twitchy about what people think of him. "Some of it is actually deeply hurtful," said the Springwatch presenter.
I don't know about Bill Oddie, but Sarah Kennedy has always seemed to me to be the kind of broadcasting bruiser who could roll with the punches. Taking criticism is part of the job, a job for which BBC presenters are handsomely rewarded.
When you're picking up £2,000-£3,000 a show - much more in television - a barbed comment from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells shouldn't reduce you to tears.
When I was a presenter on the Radio 1 Breakfast Show in the late 1980s and on Radio 5 Live in the 1990s, I was taught that as the licence payer was paying my wages, he or she could say what they liked. In those days, of course, there were no listener "messageboards" on the internet. Criticism, and praise, came by the postbag-full.
Working in national radio, I learnt to take the rough with the smooth. The author John Harvey waxed lyrical about my voice in one of his Resnick novels and fans would request signed photos and queue up for my autograph at the Radio 1 Roadshow or the Top of the Pops studio.
But lurking at the bottom of the sack, there would always be a small quota of hate mail, the more alarming of which came from crazed fans whose anger spilled across 30 pages in green-inked, spidery writing.
"Get back to Shropshire you moron," fumed one listener. "Your schoolgirl giggling is a disgrace," raged another. Some of the letters are unprintable on these pages, but however poisonous, I would always reply, thanking the correspondents for their comments. Kind or vicious, the listener had a point of view.
When I appeared on television, the comments became more personal. I was called "goofy," after Top of the Pops and told that "women should keep away from the cricket pitch and stay in the kitchen" when I joined C4 Cricket. I pressed on. I had a thick skin and the letters were pasted into a scrapbook.
Now, with messageboards, emails and text messages coming direct into a presenter's studio, the criticism is more immediate. On late-night Radio 2 a couple of years ago, I was subjected to a prolonged email campaign from one listener unhappy with my tone.
I learnt not to open her emails. And isn't that the point? Sarah Kennedy, Bill Oddie, Nicky Campbell, John Humphrys - or any of the BBC presenters - don't have to look at the messageboards or dwell on the criticism if it hurts.
So why has the BBC gagged the protesters? What has happened to free speech at Broadcasting House - Ariel's temple "of the arts and muses", as the gold inscription in the foyer grandly announces?
Could it be that the corporation has massaged the egos of its talent to such fragility that it fears a presenter could throw a wobbly live on air at any moment? I doubt it. In my experience, most national broadcasters are narcissistic enough to believe they are brilliant and talented anyway.
Perhaps it is the network controllers and editors who are uncomfortable with public criticism in this interactive age. In years gone by, a BBC secretary dealt with it privately, with a polite letter of reply.
It's ironic that just as communist China lifts its "great firewall" and unblocks access to the BBC news website after years of control, the BBC imposes its own brand of censorship.
Last week Jeremy Vine was unveiled as the new host of Points of View. The BBC press release proclaimed: "The show is more interactive than ever."
The BBC is spending millions of pounds of our licence fees in the push to be "interactive", but for all its encouragement for us to: "phone in, send us your texts and emails or visit our messageboard" what the BBC appears to be telling the audience is: "Send us your views - but only if they're nice." Barry Took must be spinning in his grave.
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
What a load of crap Leach is talking to southswans. That post was a poor post about Leach I remember that post. But so what? Does Leech stop calls that get too negative with players? He turned it into a call about himself. What about Leech being a ring leader in making fun of Dew's weight and also the Whitnall bros fighting? Did he stop that? NO!
Alphanumeric
Premiership Player
Very nice work Jabs, I'll be using part of your letter when I get on at 5, they just said I'm the first caller when the clock hits the hour so listen out, I'll be using my username too so it won't be too hard to work out who I am.
Cheers,
SS
Tom, nice work.
I wonder what Frank was referring to??
- Jul 12, 2003
- 6,984
- 12,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
They didn't let you finish what you were saying. 
Alphanumeric
Premiership Player
Jab, I know you can't talk to much about what Frank was talking about. But was it that bad??
- Mar 29, 2005
- 8,407
- 944
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers, Liverpool, Celtics
Didn't see that thread so I couldn't get him on that, anyway, I tried
- Jul 12, 2003
- 6,984
- 12,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It sounded like you wanted to keep going but they just jumped in.Didn't see that thread so I couldn't get him on that, anyway, I tried
- Mar 29, 2005
- 8,407
- 944
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers, Liverpool, Celtics
Yeah I didn't get to say my stuff about how it happens on talkback all the time. They just had an ad preceding my phone call with blokes ranting on about how shit this team/player/coach is, that was one of my other points I wanted to say but Ox and Leach cut me off...They didn't let you finish what you were saying.
Ah well. I think we should get a few more of us on there to talk about what really goes on...
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
I will tell you what the rumour was. It was BS however. Bruce Eva who used to work at the station, there was a rumour that Leech sent out a secret memo or something basically his show had an interview with someone that they had to cancel and the rumour was he refused to give the interview to Eva's show. The rumour was caused by a person who has personal issues with SEN.
My advice if you want to call is to do it on the evening show with Mark Fine as he'll give you a bit more time since his show goes for longer and isn't as busy or popular.
Alphanumeric
Premiership Player
Oz just mentioned about rumours and innuendo. I hope someone that calls up ask Oz and Frank about the rumours and innuendo that is spoken out on SEN.
Brasil2007
Club Legend
Did Fine have a go? That's a bit odd given he actually CITES stuff from here!
Frankly except for Morning Glory I don't really listen to SEN any more. I used to listen to it close to 24 hours a day I basically stopped when a bunch of commentators were running a campaign trying to get Trent West suspended a few rounds ago, even after he was cleared by the match review panel. Clearly that was behaviour that they wouldn't have engaged in if he was a more senior player. I certainly didn't hear too many of them calling for Scott West to be suspended a week or two later when he blocked Daniel Kerr much further off the ball (and nor should he have). Similarly Josh Hunt was crucified in public for pulling out of a contest a couple of years ago - I've seen a lot of other players do the same thing, including many of the darlings of the media, but Josh was victimised because he's a relatively junior player with almost no media profile. The media plays favorites (and engages in behaviour much closer to harassment) a lot more than anything I've seen on here.
Unlike anything on SEN as long as you have a computer you've got a right of reply here too, no matter who you are. You certainly won't be cut off and jumped over the way our bloke just was on SEN.
purremiers
Team Captain
me either, their hipocritical and just hang up on you if there worried you might say something that makes a bit more sense than ox's balony!
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
Hey guys,
Francis, please don't generalise the entire footy forum community just because of one bad experience. I know exactly what you're referring to it and it was started by one malicious person. The mods are pretty busy and if noone reports posts it is hard to get rid of every single thing. I know for a fact from personal experience that if you have a problem with a poster personally just contact a moderator or an admin and it will get dealt with very quickly.
Secondly I think it's very hypocritical of you to badmouth sites like bigfooty because of the nature of rumours and slander especially since your show took such great joy in making fun of Dew's weight and the whole Whitnall vs. Whitnall situation. Especailly in your introduction music piece to the soap box it plays highlights of people bagging players!
Thanks
Ok I just sent this email to the run home, they won't read it though.
Francis, please don't generalise the entire footy forum community just because of one bad experience. I know exactly what you're referring to it and it was started by one malicious person. The mods are pretty busy and if noone reports posts it is hard to get rid of every single thing. I know for a fact from personal experience that if you have a problem with a poster personally just contact a moderator or an admin and it will get dealt with very quickly.
Secondly I think it's very hypocritical of you to badmouth sites like bigfooty because of the nature of rumours and slander especially since your show took such great joy in making fun of Dew's weight and the whole Whitnall vs. Whitnall situation. Especailly in your introduction music piece to the soap box it plays highlights of people bagging players!
Thanks
Ok I just sent this email to the run home, they won't read it though.
- Banned
- #225
They Are Jealous Of Bushy
