|
Post by Hogan on Oct 19, 2011 22:17:55 GMT
I think the person who gave out a posters personal details to the club should be held to account, he subsequently admitted it but is defence was that he gave them an incorrect email address, well that is truly disgraceful. If he did it in the first place to protect his albeit unpaid job at QPR then he made it worse for himself if indeed he gave the club false details. How can the club have such a person representing it?
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 20, 2011 17:14:43 GMT
Don't know many who have blamed ricroc for our poor peformance and that includes Colin. In fact the weight of opinion, at least on messageboards, seems to be the action of giving out personal contact details to the club. Not sure if that is the same with the vast majority of fans that do not use messageboards but they will most likely be saying who's this ricroc and who told him? Let's face facts, that site was created for the express purpose of spreading rumour, being one up on others, being the de facto ITK by people who had been laughed off of most boards due to the drivel people didn't want to read. Those that did, went there, which was fine. Apologises went offline and have only just seen the responses. I'm not saying everyone has blamed RicRoc but as you say there are some not many but some. And I agree, the issue most people have who use messageboards is whether their personal details are safe and I'm quite confident that mine are on this site.
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 20, 2011 17:24:44 GMT
In defence of RicRoc - don't know him personally but enjoy debating with him - I will say that clearly the information that he posted wasn't ever picked up by Blackburn. The clearly opperated a holding midfielder to deal with Taraabt - something which Kean himself has said he did - so although many are angry for posting what he heard it wasn't the reason for our poor performance. Warnock and the team need to look at their own performances before shifting the blame onto somebody on a messageboard. So its cool with you that a player can tell people who post on message boards every single day team and injury news then yeah? Neil was wrong to feel aggrieved that their is a mouth mole in his dressing room, and he should of said nothing? We didnt lose, and Warnock blamed nobody for the performance, as it was a fine performance by a good Rangers side, why did he have to deflect any balme for something balmeless? A win would of been great, but we didnt lose. I didn't say anything was or wasn't 'cool'. What I said is that the information given was clearly ignored and if Kean has got any sense he'll continue to ignore what people say on messageboards as 99.9% of the time what people post is rubbish. As it was clearly ignored by Kean - he has said he didn't know anything about it - our failure to beat Blackburn is no fault but our own. If Warnock feels the need to blame someone he obviously felt that the performance wasn't good enough and therefore should look closer to home then trying to blame somebody posting on a messageboard.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 20, 2011 18:25:14 GMT
Beyond all this...And my views re Pete and the club relationship have been pretty-clearly expressed in the past...
On THIS occasion, the club "apparently" got the email from Pete and then Warnock announced it/the Official Site posted it.
What about next time? If the club is pissed off with what some other fan did or posts, and the club has its own records re that poster: Perhaps it's a season ticket holder or a member or a subscriber to QPR Player or just a programme subscriber...
Are the club going to then post private information about that next "problem" QPR supporters?
And again, let's not forget that Warnock's diatribe extended to calling Ricroc not a real QPR supporter. And regardless of the merits of what Ric-roc did, that's some Chutzpah for a temporary club employee (or even a club shareholder) to say about any fan.
So yes, Pete is definitely a very legitimate topic of debate. And the identity of the club leaker is as well.
But what our club has done should be ignored or forgotten. It's potentially a fairly dangerous step they have taken
|
|
|
Post by mikehunt on Oct 20, 2011 19:23:53 GMT
If Warnock feels the need to blame someone he obviously felt that the performance wasn't good enough and therefore should look closer to home then trying to blame somebody posting on a messageboard. What was it about the draw against a team thats well settled in the premiership that you personally didnt like, and what do you think was the really bad parts about the performance that made Warnock bring up ric roc and his posting of injury news and team selection? I would like to know, because i didnt think it was that bad a match at all, and i genuinly believed Warnock was just seriously aggrieved that he has a leak in his dressing room, and his outburst and anger was over someone posting up sensitive information on a forum, and nothing more than that, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible performance in getting a home draw in the premiership.
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 21, 2011 11:52:32 GMT
If Warnock feels the need to blame someone he obviously felt that the performance wasn't good enough and therefore should look closer to home then trying to blame somebody posting on a messageboard. What was it about the draw against a team thats well settled in the premiership that you personally didnt like, and what do you think was the really bad parts about the performance that made Warnock bring up ric roc and his posting of injury news and team selection? I would like to know, because i didnt think it was that bad a match at all, and i genuinly believed Warnock was just seriously aggrieved that he has a leak in his dressing room, and his outburst and anger was over someone posting up sensitive information on a forum, and nothing more than that, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible performance in getting a home draw in the premiership. That's two posts of mine now where I've not said anything yet you are implying I have. I didn't say whether I was or wasn't happy with the result or the performance. If you disagree with me when I give my opinion on something that's fine but you are disagreeing with something I haven't even written or implied. Warnock himself has said he wasn't happy with the performance and the way we defended at the corner that led to Samba's goal.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Oct 21, 2011 11:57:42 GMT
Just to change the subject SirPie, nice to see you on here, even if it isn't in the best circumstances!
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Oct 21, 2011 12:01:51 GMT
What was it about the draw against a team thats well settled in the premiership that you personally didnt like, and what do you think was the really bad parts about the performance that made Warnock bring up ric roc and his posting of injury news and team selection? I would like to know, because i didnt think it was that bad a match at all, and i genuinly believed Warnock was just seriously aggrieved that he has a leak in his dressing room, and his outburst and anger was over someone posting up sensitive information on a forum, and nothing more than that, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrible performance in getting a home draw in the premiership. That's two posts of mine now where I've not said anything yet you are implying I have. I didn't say whether I was or wasn't happy with the result or the performance. If you disagree with me when I give my opinion on something that's fine but you are disagreeing with something I haven't even written or implied. Warnock himself has said he wasn't happy with the performance and the way we defended at the corner that led to Samba's goal. yeah well that's Derry's fault for leaving the line, and oh, Samba is 6'6". Kean said 'he didn't know anything about it' what else is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah a qpr supporter told us and we thought, well why not, and no I'm not a good manager, cause I need the help of the enemy to win games, make him manager of Blackburn, I myself am not good enough" Do you honestly believe the things managers say? you slam Warnock but believe Kean. Please.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Oct 21, 2011 12:02:09 GMT
Welcome SirPie
|
|
|
Post by waterbuffalo on Oct 21, 2011 12:03:23 GMT
Echoing Jon, great to see you here.
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 21, 2011 12:42:13 GMT
That's two posts of mine now where I've not said anything yet you are implying I have. I didn't say whether I was or wasn't happy with the result or the performance. If you disagree with me when I give my opinion on something that's fine but you are disagreeing with something I haven't even written or implied. Warnock himself has said he wasn't happy with the performance and the way we defended at the corner that led to Samba's goal. yeah well that's Derry's fault for leaving the line, and oh, Samba is 6'6". Kean said 'he didn't know anything about it' what else is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah a qpr supporter told us and we thought, well why not, and no I'm not a good manager, cause I need the help of the enemy to win games, make him manager of Blackburn, I myself am not good enough" Do you honestly believe the things managers say? you slam Warnock but believe Kean. Please. I'm not 'slamming' Warnock I am saying that if someone publically announces that they are disappointed by the performance of their team then ultimately they are saying someone is to blame for that performance. Instead of purely blamming the performance of those who played he tried to shift some of that blame onto the mole and RicRoc. I am not saying that either the mole or RicRoc are entirely free of blame for anything - RicRoc himself has said that he wished he hadn't have posted it. But Warnock picked 11 men and rather than solely laying the blame at either their or his doorstep he has looked to blame people who either weren't being picked on a regular basis or a fan who has no power over the performance of the team. Shame that Warnock, who was so quick to blame the likes of Gorkss and Connolly last year when they made mistakes hasn't done the same to Hall for failing to pick Samba up.
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 21, 2011 12:48:05 GMT
Thanks to those welcoming me! I'm a loyal guy hence why I stuck with WATRBs but ultimately I feel now is the right time to come and debate with you guys. I enjoy that this board doesn't result to name calling and keyboard gansters and that debate is taken seriously and opinions are heard. WATRBs was and will continue to be a great forum but something about this forum and how I would like to discuss QPR just feels right.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 21, 2011 12:50:36 GMT
I'd just reiterate that to me: The MOST pernicious part of this "incident" - and the one with the most deep-seated implications - is that our club (not just Warnock) feels it's acceptable to attack by name (and post an email) of a fan with whom the are unhappy.
And so whether Warnock's criticism is valid or not; whether WATRB/Pete (once again) did something beyond the pale; whether Ricroc was right or wrong to do what he did..whether the club leaker should be punished...and of course whether our players failed in some way. All valid. But after these issues have sunk into the background, we're still left with the club having taken an action hat was completely beyond the pale. AND not having apologized or assured us that it won't happen again
|
|
|
Post by sirpiechucker on Oct 21, 2011 13:06:50 GMT
I'd just reiterate that to me: The MOST pernicious part of this "incident" - and the one with the most deep-seated implications - is that our club (not just Warnock) feels it's acceptable to attack by name (and post an email) of a fan with whom the are unhappy. And so whether Warnock's criticism is valid or not; whether WATRB/Pete (once again) did something beyond the pale; whether Ricroc was right or wrong to do what he did..whether the club leaker should be punished...and of course whether our players failed in some way. All valid. But after these issues have sunk into the background, we're still left with the club having taken an action hat was completely beyond the pale. AND not having apologized or assured us that it won't happen again Agree and as you say they are all valid.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 21, 2011 13:40:09 GMT
Time to move on now, isn't it? Spot on Jon I think everyone is now aware of how Frees Seat Pete works. Time to move on. Indeed, should you want to see FSP continue to be foolish pop over to LFW.
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 21, 2011 13:54:32 GMT
Spot on Jon I think everyone is now aware of how Frees Seat Pete works. Time to move on. Indeed, should you want to see FSP continue to be foolish pop over to LFW. Is that still going on?
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 21, 2011 14:14:45 GMT
Sure is and he's piped up on another thread about moderation techniques, you couldn't make it up!
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Oct 21, 2011 19:19:37 GMT
SPC, good to see you visiting again. As Mac said, Pete has now made this a topic worth discussion because of the ramifications of his actions. I wont say allegedly because he's already admitted it.
I'm kinda reminded of the old joke "He's had more comebacks than Frank Sinatra - with reference to Pete and his continual use of "This is the last time I'll be posting or posting on this topic" type messages.
For me, Warnock needs to apologise to Ric Roc. That was not a good move. In regards to Pete, well, what damage has he done to his own website? If I was a member there I'd be very nervous. Are my details safe? This, despite assurances from other mods on there, I believe. They may well abide by the rules and Internet equittee but then they cannot speak for Pete. The club of course when they find out whom leaked the information in the first place, are they going to hang the player/ staff member out to dry like they did with Ric Roc?
I don't blame Ric Roc at all. Any fan given that type of "scoop" would have been itching to put it up on their favourite MB, Ric Roc did just that. Once the error was realised, he tried in vain to do something about it and was consequently sold down the river. That his request was not immediately actioned is a sham. Some have said Ric Roc could have done it himself - true, but then I think, he in good faith did the right thing and approached the MB co-owner to do the right thing.
|
|
tonyr1
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 119
|
Post by tonyr1 on Oct 21, 2011 21:55:36 GMT
Can understand both sides of the argument, problem is this site cannot guarantee no details being passed on either.
Its owned by Pro-boards
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 21, 2011 22:23:01 GMT
Pro Boards is an entity not someone who gives away email addresses.
Daft comment tonyr1
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 21, 2011 22:30:40 GMT
think they can cpr mind you, i got nahink to hide By Law or to Protect Rights. ProBoards discloses Personal Information when required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order, or when ProBoards believes in its sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the property or rights of ProBoards, third-parties or the public at large.
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Oct 21, 2011 22:33:00 GMT
Can understand both sides of the argument, problem is this site cannot guarantee no details being passed on either. Its owned by Pro-boards We can. Pete Davies does not have access to any emails.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 21, 2011 22:36:01 GMT
pete is a 'PUBLIC AT LARGE'.
i'm worried now.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 21, 2011 22:36:12 GMT
think they can cpr mind you, i got nahink to hide By Law or to Protect Rights. ProBoards discloses Personal Information when required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order, or when ProBoards believes in its sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the property or rights of ProBoards, third-parties or the public at large. Thank you for proving me right maude.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 21, 2011 22:38:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 21, 2011 22:41:14 GMT
i understand now
|
|
tonyr1
Dave Mangnall
Posts: 119
|
Post by tonyr1 on Oct 21, 2011 22:45:03 GMT
Guess it will try and be underplayed
when ProBoards believes in its sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the property or rights of ProBoards, third-parties or the public at large.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 21, 2011 22:55:55 GMT
I somehow don't think anyone has to worry - except for maybe Pete
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Oct 21, 2011 23:04:35 GMT
I somehow don't think anyone has to worry - except for maybe Pete He has every reason to.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 21, 2011 23:06:17 GMT
Just to note, i thought tonyr1 was a genuine worried QPRreport poster who was alerting us of maybe a loophole in the privacy set up.
but after reading responses from our mods i recall tony1r being a sh1t stirrer on previous occasions on this site.
Apologies.
|
|